# Another Fundy wacko bites the dust



## Bird Dog

Like I stated in other posts. Once or twice a year, some "born again" Fundy wacko comes on here, bashes the RCC for a couple of days then bites the dust. Must of went back under his rock

Good Riddence chuckt


----------



## Gilligan

Rats. I was enjoying the rapport.


----------



## Chuckt

Bird Dog said:


> Like I stated in other posts. Once or twice a year, some "born again" Fundy wacko comes on here, bashes the RCC for a couple of days then bites the dust. Must of went back under his rock
> 
> Good Riddence chuckt



What are you talking about?  I was studying for a test.


----------



## Gilligan

A urine test?

Did you pass it?


----------



## b23hqb

Chuckt said:


> What are you talking about?  I was studying for a test.



A bit of premature ejaculation on the part of BD.


----------



## Amused_despair

Religious views are a lot like genitalia,  everyone has them, not everyone takes it pleasantly when someone else tries to shove their own down someone else's throat. Its ok to share your beliefs, but save the lecturing for those who already agree with you, you are not going to change anyone's minds on matters of belief.


----------



## vraiblonde

Why did you think Chuck was gone?


----------



## PsyOps

You define a Catholic hater as a 'fundy wacko'?  Perhaps I don't know what a 'fundy wacko' is.


----------



## Radiant1

Amused_despair said:


> Religious views are a lot like genitalia,  everyone has them, not everyone takes it pleasantly when someone else tries to shove their own down someone else's throat. Its ok to share your beliefs, but save the lecturing for those who already agree with you, you are not going to change anyone's minds on matters of belief.


----------



## Bird Dog

vraiblonde said:


> Why did you think Chuck was gone?



They don't usually last long when they cant convert Catholics to there Fundamental  Crap. Most are gone in less that 72 hours and he hadn't responded for awhile


----------



## Bird Dog

PsyOps said:


> You define a Catholic hater as a 'fundy wacko'?  Perhaps I don't know what a 'fundy wacko' is.



No, Fundy Wackos hate Catholics, there is a difference. 

A Fundy Wacko is  "Born Again" POS, that finds Jesus as they crawl out from under their rock, which is a good thing. Then they wind up with one of the thousands of Fundamentalist strip mall churches and are taught to slam Catholicism. Rather that help those that were under that rock with them, because they do not believe in "deeds"
 JMHO


----------



## Amused_despair

Catholic Church: come for the crackers, stay for the wine


----------



## Bird Dog

Amused_despair said:


> Catholic Church: come for the crackers, stay for the wine



We've never heard that one before


----------



## Radiant1

Amused_despair said:


> Catholic Church: come for the crackers, stay for the wine



Damn right! Catholics serve quality Bread and Wine, none of those cheap-ass crackers and grape juice.


----------



## PsyOps

Amused_despair said:


> Religious views are a lot like genitalia,  everyone has them, not everyone takes it pleasantly when someone else tries to shove their own down someone else's throat. Its ok to share your beliefs, but save the lecturing for those who already agree with you, you are not going to change anyone's minds on matters of belief.



Don't look now, but you're lecturing...


----------



## PsyOps

Bird Dog said:


> No, Fundy Wackos hate Catholics, there is a difference.
> 
> A Fundy Wacko is  "Born Again" POS, that finds Jesus as they crawl out from under their rock, which is a good thing. Then they wind up with one of the thousands of Fundamentalist strip mall churches and are taught to slam Catholicism. Rather that help those that were under that rock with them, because they do not believe in "deeds"
> JMHO



So you criticize hate with hate.  Interesting Christian tactic.


----------



## Amused_despair

am not


----------



## Bird Dog

PsyOps said:


> So you criticize hate with hate.  Interesting Christian tactic.



I just put a mirror up to hate......if the reflection is bad, so be it


----------



## Chuckt

Bird Dog said:


> They don't usually last long when they cant convert Catholics to there Fundamental  Crap. Most are gone in less that 72 hours and he hadn't responded for awhile



I know some unhelpful users that wouldn't stop posting on this forum if I told them about it.  They would be like, "What?  A free audience?"


----------



## Radiant1

Unhelpful fundies...enough said.


----------



## Chuckt

Bird Dog said:


> I just put a mirror up to hate......if the reflection is bad, so be it



Except that Jesus said He would hold you responsible for every idle word:

Matthew 12:36	 	But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

So unless you have a Biblical reason for saying what you're saying, you are going to have to answer to God and you have no Biblical excuse.

On top of that, you were told to love your enemies and to do good to those who hate you.


----------



## Radiant1

Chuckt said:


> Except that Jesus said He would hold you responsible for every idle word:
> 
> Matthew 12:36	 	But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
> 
> So unless you have a Biblical reason for saying what you're saying, you are going to have to answer to God and you have no Biblical excuse.



Seriously? Do you have a biblical reason for every word that comes out of your mouth? Don't lie!

Btw, you don't get to skate on being held accountable for your words or deeds either. You may want to give that some *serious *thought before pointing self-righteous fingers at people.



Chuckt said:


> On top of that, you were told to love your enemies and to do good to those who hate you.



Yeah Bird Dog, the fundamentalist Christian hates you so do good to him!


----------



## Chuckt

Radiant1 said:


> Seriously? Do you have a biblical reason for every word that comes out of your mouth? Don't lie!
> 
> Btw, you don't get to skate on being held accountable for your words or deeds either. You may want to give that some *serious *thought before pointing self-righteous fingers at people.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah Bird Dog, the fundamentalist Christian hates you so do good to him!



If you're the kind of person who knows that he or she is evil then everyone else is evil because people view others like that and there is nothing much I can change your mind on.


----------



## Radiant1

Chuckt said:


> If you're the kind of person who knows that he or she is evil then everyone else is evil because people view others like that and there is nothing much I can change your mind on.



Oh I don't know about that. I think good people can recognize evil when they see it. Sometimes evil is a little more subtle, underhanded or under a guise, but even so it's still evil. :shrug:

Think about it. Bird Dog was referring to you and didn't treat you so well, and you reminded him of the scripture passage that says he should do good to those who hate him, which heavily implies that you hate him. You pretty much called yourself out...and used scripture to do it...which is kind of sick.

Btw, you didn't answer my question. In fact, there is a LOT of questions in a few threads the last couple days you haven't answered. Why is that? Oh wait, never mind, that's another question you likely won't answer.


----------



## Chuckt

Radiant1 said:


> Oh I don't know about that. I think good people can recognize evil when they see it. Sometimes evil is a little more subtle, underhanded or under a guise, but even so it's still evil. :shrug:
> 
> Think about it. Bird Dog was referring to you and didn't treat you so well, and you reminded him of the scripture passage that says he should do good to those who hate him, which heavily implies that you hate him. You pretty much called yourself out...and used scripture to do it...which is kind of sick.
> 
> Btw, you didn't answer my question. In fact, there is a LOT of questions in a few threads the last couple days you haven't answered. Why is that? Oh wait, never mind, that's another question you likely won't answer.



What I'm saying is that because some people know they are evil, what they believe about themselves is what they think about other people.

I'm not at all implying that I hate anyone on this forum.  If someone hates me then they believe I'm their enemy so if they are a Christian and I'm their enemy then why don't they love their enemies as Christ commanded them to do?  If you say you are a Christian and if you say that you follow Jesus then why don't they do the things that Jesus says?

I'm not into multi-quoted posts because I've never figured out how people do them.  I've tried to do them manually and it takes a lot of time so it is possible that I didn't answer your question but ask again.

As far as using scripture to be evil, I just see that God wrote His words down and if we follow it then we're following God.  So there are also things that God says in His word to do that people don't like:

2 Timothy 3:16	 	All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

All scripture is profitable for reproof, correction, etc.  People don't like that and I could have a ministry doing that.

Paul also says that to make manifest is light so people thing that it is wrong to judge but God loves judgment and it is light that makes manifest and not darkness.

Ephesians  5:13	 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.

It is really the opposite where darkness hates the light and won't come into the light because they don't want to be reproved:

John 3:20	 	For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

So if people complain about me following Ephesians 5:11 and calling me "wrong" for doing that then they have God's system backwards:

Ephesians 5:11	 	And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove (expose) them.

What I am teaching is basic Christian doctrine and I've had people argue against this and the Bible since 1986 so I've had a lot of experience debating people who hate the Bible and it is Basic Christian Doctrine.  So I can probably find a dozen commentaries that say the same thing I'm saying and people will say "prove it" and when I prove it they will say, "stop quoting dead men" so it doesn't matter if I say it or God says it because people reject it and if they don't listen to me then they won't listen to Jesus, the Apostles, commentaries, dictionaries, books with apologetics or reasons to follow the Bible.  And when I go down this road, it doesn't stop because people make up excuses to say, "no" to God because they wouldn't obey Him in His kingdom either so people can go to church but when they debate me, I see them as functioning atheists because they are at hatred with God because they don't like His rules or obey Him.  All the writings I've tried to prove over the years comes down as Basic Christian doctrine that people over the web hate.  They think they are smart and say, "That isn't what the word says" but I spent and spend hours trying to defend the Bible and I'm not impressed with the megabytes I have written because it comes down to basic Christian doctrine.


----------



## Bird Dog

Chuckt said:


> What I'm saying is that because some people know they are evil, what they believe about themselves is what they think about other people.
> 
> I'm not at all implying that I hate anyone on this forum.  If someone hates me then they believe I'm their enemy so if they are a Christian and I'm their enemy then why don't they love their enemies as Christ commanded them to do?  If you say you are a Christian and if you say that you follow Jesus then why don't they do the things that Jesus says?
> 
> I'm not into multi-quoted posts because I've never figured out how people do them.  I've tried to do them manually and it takes a lot of time so it is possible that I didn't answer your question but ask again.
> 
> As far as using scripture to be evil, I just see that God wrote His words down and if we follow it then we're following God.  So there are also things that God says in His word to do that people don't like:
> 
> 2 Timothy 3:16	 	All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
> 
> All scripture is profitable for reproof, correction, etc.  People don't like that and I could have a ministry doing that.
> 
> Paul also says that to make manifest is light so people thing that it is wrong to judge but God loves judgment and it is light that makes manifest and not darkness.
> 
> Ephesians  5:13	 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.
> 
> It is really the opposite where darkness hates the light and won't come into the light because they don't want to be reproved:
> 
> John 3:20	 	For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
> 
> So if people complain about me following Ephesians 5:11 and calling me "wrong" for doing that then they have God's system backwards:
> 
> Ephesians 5:11	 	And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove (expose) them.
> 
> What I am teaching is basic Christian doctrine and I've had people argue against this and the Bible since 1986 so I've had a lot of experience debating people who hate the Bible and it is Basic Christian Doctrine.  So I can probably find a dozen commentaries that say the same thing I'm saying and people will say "prove it" and when I prove it they will say, "stop quoting dead men" so it doesn't matter if I say it or God says it because people reject it and if they don't listen to me then they won't listen to Jesus, the Apostles, commentaries, dictionaries, books with apologetics or reasons to follow the Bible.  And when I go down this road, it doesn't stop because people make up excuses to say, "no" to God because they wouldn't obey Him in His kingdom either so people can go to church but when they debate me, I see them as functioning atheists because they are at hatred with God because they don't like His rules or obey Him.  All the writings I've tried to prove over the years comes down as Basic Christian doctrine that people over the web hate.  They think they are smart and say, "That isn't what the word says" but I spent and spend hours trying to defend the Bible and I'm not impressed with the megabytes I have written because it comes down to basic Christian doctrine.



You really are full of yourself.
I don't hate you, I pity you.
You are not my enemy, because you can do me no harm
You're just a self righteous a-hole


----------



## Chuckt

Bird Dog said:


> You really are full of yourself.
> I don't hate you, I pity you.
> You are not my enemy, because you can do me no harm
> You're just a self righteous a-hole



"...by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."-Rom. 5:19

The obedience of Jesus made us us righteous so it isn't my righteousness or my self-righteousness but His righteousness and the Bible is His standards.

And we will be kings and priests unto God.

Revelation 1:6	 	And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Revelation 5:10	 	And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

So who are you really picking on?

"He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me."-Matthew 10:40

"..He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me."-John 13:20

God sends me (Mark 16:15, Matthew 28:19-20) so if you pick on me, you are really picking on God.

Jesus had ascended to God after the resurrection and Jesus told paul, "I am Jesus whom thou persecutest."  Paul was only hauling off Christians and Paul didn't think he was persecuting God but God takes it personally:

Acts 9:5	 	And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Matthew 25:40	 	And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Am I insignificant that I could count as one of the least that you say things about me?  You've done it unto Jesus.

Romans 14:12	 	So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

Now that you know better, what are you going to say to God when asked about it?

Cain killed Abel and then we have this law:

Genesis 9:6	 	Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

The reason being is that you are doing something to someone made in the image of God and God takes that personally.

1 John 3:15	Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

So why don't we try again and start off right together?


----------



## Bird Dog

Chuckt said:


> "...
> 
> So why don't we try again and start off right together?



No, you must be joking

Why don't you start again by apologizing for being an #######........


----------



## Chuckt

Bird Dog said:


> No, you must be joking
> 
> Why don't you start again by apologizing for being an #######........



If you don't like me, isn't that your problem?


----------



## Gilligan

Chuckt said:


> If you don't like me, isn't that your problem?



Isn't that exactly what your goal is, after all?  Phenomenally obnoxious in-your-face people like yourself tend to be.....wait for it...disliked.


----------



## Chuckt

Gilligan said:


> Isn't that exactly what your goal is, after all?  Phenomenally obnoxious in-your-face people like yourself tend to be.....wait for it...disliked.



I saw the forum said "Religion" and a lot of the posts were by hotcoffe and not you.
I didn't know the forum said "Catholic" and that anyone else wasn't welcome here.
It was okay for others to challenge me and people asked me to answer them but I guess that isn't a two way street.
It is a public forum and not owned by anyone so I believe that anyone has a right here as much as you but you are the one being not welcoming.


----------



## Bird Dog

Chuckt said:


> I saw the forum said "Religion" and a lot of the posts were by hotcoffe and not you.
> I didn't know the forum said "Catholic" and that anyone else wasn't welcome here.
> It was okay for others to challenge me and people asked me to answer them but I guess that isn't a two way street.
> It is a public forum and not owned by anyone so I believe that anyone has a right here as much as you but you are the one being not welcoming.


----------



## Radiant1

Chuckt said:


> I saw the forum said "Religion" and a lot of the posts were by hotcoffe and not you.
> I didn't know the forum said "Catholic" and that anyone else wasn't welcome here.
> It was okay for others to challenge me and people asked me to answer them but I guess that isn't a two way street.
> It is a public forum and not owned by anyone so I believe that anyone has a right here as much as you but you are the one being not welcoming.



Boohoo. Don't play the martyr, it's unbecoming and an insult to those who truly are. As far as I'm concerned, the first posts from you I read was your many anti-Catholic diatribes. I have since in the course of defending my faith to you _*nominally* *_challenged you, but you have yet to respond to any of it, which implies you have no desire for dialogue or even debate but just want a pulpit to hear yourself preach. If you're going to come across like an ass, then expect to be disliked. 





*Mind you, I say *nominally *because I could hit you hard in the theological gonads, but I choose not to because I allow people to follow their conscience even if I don't particularly agree with it, I simply pray for those who I feel need it, and I never feel the need to cram my particular views down anyone's throat. Generally speaking, I don't even post in the religion forum until someone like you makes ignorant comments about my faith.


----------



## Gilligan

Chuckt said:


> you are the one being not welcoming.



Now that's ^ funny right there...I don't care who ya are!


----------



## PsyOps

The one thing I can say is – and this is NOT defending or condemning Chuckt or anyone else – when Jesus came along, His ideas were so radical that the leaders of the Sanhedrin and Synagogues put Him to death.  He challenged the 'conventional thinking' and practices of those days.  We are over 2000 years into the death of Jesus and a lot of practices, in every denomination, have been CREATED in His name that I would question as biblical.

Folks throwing around the term ‘fundamental’ around don’t seem to be thinking about what that word means… ‘Fundamantal’ means getting to the rudimentary, foundational tenets of the faith.  You really should ask yourself “is my faith TRULY following the FUNDAMENTAL tenets that Christ set up?”

Having attended just about every denomination under the sun, I’d not.  We’re all in danger of displeasing God in this front.


----------



## Amused_despair

PsyOps said:


> The one thing I can say is – and this is NOT defending or condemning Chuckt or anyone else – when Jesus came along, His ideas were so radical that the leaders of the Sanhedrin and Synagogues put Him to death.  He challenged the 'conventional thinking' and practices of those days.  We are over 2000 years into the death of Jesus and a lot of practices, in every denomination, have been CREATED in His name that I would question as biblical.
> 
> Folks throwing around the term ‘fundamental’ around don’t seem to be thinking about what that word means… ‘Fundamantal’ means getting to the rudimentary, foundational tenets of the faith.  You really should ask yourself “is my faith TRULY following the FUNDAMENTAL tenets that Christ set up?”
> 
> Having attended just about every denomination under the sun, I’d not.  We’re all in danger of displeasing God in this front.



Jesus would probably not be very happy with the so-called Christians of these days.

Mathew 19:21

21Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.  

He was very specific about us worrying about and accumulating wealth. : Mathew 6:19-34

19Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

20But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

21For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

22The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

23But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

24No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

25Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

26Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

27Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

28And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:

29And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

30Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

31Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

32(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.

33But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

34Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.


----------



## PsyOps

Amused_despair said:


> Jesus would probably not be very happy with the so-called Christians of these days.



Good post!

My thoughts on this is, I know God is unhappy with me…………… especially since I stress over nitnoid stuff like little traffic annoyances     (straining at a gnat).

But I see all of these folks so quick to point out the flaws of everyone else’s practices while failing to see their own.  In the “What do you do” thread I was quick to point what I perceived to be other peoples’ flaws (selfish driving habits) while failing to see my own (my impatience with those people).  

“… first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” – Matthew 7:5


----------



## Chuckt

PsyOps said:


> Good post!
> 
> My thoughts on this is, I know God is unhappy with me…………… especially since I stress over nitnoid stuff like little traffic annoyances     (straining at a gnat).
> 
> But I see all of these folks so quick to point out the flaws of everyone else’s practices while failing to see their own.  In the “What do you do” thread I was quick to point what I perceived to be other peoples’ flaws (selfish driving habits) while failing to see my own (my impatience with those people).
> 
> “… first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” – Matthew 7:5



And what happens when we repent and pull the plank out of our eye?  We can then judge.


----------



## PsyOps

Chuckt said:


> And what happens when we repent and pull the plank out of our eye?  We can then judge.



I see... All of your issues in life are resolved?  I happen to find your judgment on others to be an unresolved issue.

I think this is why Jesus said: "“Do not judge, or you too will be judged."  We're never truly in a position to judge.


----------



## Gilligan

Chuckt said:


> And what happens when we repent and pull the plank out of our eye?  We can then judge.



Now THERE is an interesting concept.  A complete fallacy...but interesting, nonetheless.


----------



## Chuckt

Gilligan said:


> Now THERE is an interesting concept.  A complete fallacy...but interesting, nonetheless.



Not a fallacy.

Matthew 7:5   Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. 

Jesus says to cast the beam out of your own eye.  Did you do that yet?  Or do you only follow one verse and not follow the other verses?


----------



## Radiant1

Here's the full verse for context.

Matthew 7
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Personally, I think Chuckt's interpretation is a serious case of eisegesis (which means he puts the meaning he wants *into *the text) as opposed to exegesis (taking meaning *from *the text).

Considering men have a propensity to sin, it's highly likely that we're always going to have a mote in our eye; therefore, we aren't to pass judgment on anyone, and if we do we can be guaranteed to get the same in like manner from God. But, that's just my take on it; I'm not overly fond of throwing stones first* or usurping the judgments of God for that matter.

There is a difference between discernment and judgment in the Christian lexicon; however, Chuck is here speaking of judgment, which makes me cringe because I know from experience when you get too proud God gives you a smack down eventually. A little humility goes a long way. Some of us have to learn it the hard way I guess.


* We all know I have no problem throwing a stone back, but I never throw it first.


----------



## Gilligan

Chuckt said:


> Not a fallacy.
> 
> Matthew 7:5   Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
> 
> Jesus says to cast the beam out of your own eye.  Did you do that yet?  Or do you only follow one verse and not follow the other verses?



Finally..after all these years (I'm 57) I encounter one so pure and perfect that he, and he alone, is in a position to judge all others. Well how about that? Did you pay extra for that feature?


----------



## Chuckt

Gilligan said:


> Finally..after all these years (I'm 57) I encounter one so pure and perfect that he, and he alone, is in a position to judge all others. Well how about that? Did you pay extra for that feature?



You're 57?  Congratulations.  You learn something new every day.


----------



## PsyOps

Chuckt said:


> You're 57?  Congratulations.  You learn something new every day.



And humble to boot


----------



## Chuckt

Radiant1 said:


> Here's the full verse for context.
> 
> Matthew 7
> 1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
> 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
> 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
> 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
> 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
> 
> Personally, I think Chuckt's interpretation is a serious case of eisegesis (which means he puts the meaning he wants *into *the text) as opposed to exegesis (taking meaning *from *the text).
> 
> Considering men have a propensity to sin, it's highly likely that we're always going to have a mote in our eye; therefore, we aren't to pass judgment on anyone, and if we do we can be guaranteed to get the same in like manner from God. But, that's just my take on it; I'm not overly fond of throwing stones first* or usurping the judgments of God for that matter.
> 
> There is a difference between discernment and judgment in the Christian lexicon; however, Chuck is here speaking of judgment, which makes me cringe because I know from experience when you get too proud God gives you a smack down eventually. A little humility goes a long way. Some of us have to learn it the hard way I guess.
> 
> 
> * We all know I have no problem throwing a stone back, but I never throw it first.



Are you saying that sin isn't willful?  If sin isn't willful then isn't it like you accusing God that it is His fault?  Didn't Jesus come to show that He could come as a man and not sin?  If Jesus can come as a man and lay down his powers and not sin then why can't you?  Sin is a choice.

Better check your eisegesis.  It is based on a motivation to have no requirements, to not come in conflict with others, to not have to tell the truth, etc.  When you are a friend of the world then you are against God because then you're offending Him.

What does the Bible mean that we are not to judge others?
http://www.gotquestions.org/do-not-judge.html

The cult of “Do not Judge”
http://www.letusreason.org/pent44.htm

Do not judge - Is that biblical? What does the Bible mean when it says we are not to judge others?

http://www.compellingtruth.org/do-not-judge.html

Should Christians Judge?
http://www.christianpost.com/news/should-christians-judge-132500/

Does the Bible say we should judge sin in other Christians?

http://www.amazingfacts.org/media-l...-we-should-judge-sin-in-other-christians.aspx

Judging
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/j14.html

Is Judging someone a sin?
http://www.clsnet.org/page.aspx?pid=776

Should Christians Judge?
http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2009/04/30/should-christians-judge/

Christians And Judging
http://www.christianissues.biz/judging.html

Does the Bible Tell Christians to Judge Not?
https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/does-the-bible-tell-christians-to-judge-not/

To Judge, or Not to Judge
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/july/22.52.html

So there you have it.  Your word and understanding against Christianity Today, The Christian Post, apologetic ministries and pastors and teachers.  
Everyone uses "Judge not lest you be judged" as a proof text but what does the Bible say?


We are to shadow box because we follow Paul who shadow boxed (1 Cor. 9:26-27).  We are supposed to test by comparing spiritual things with spiritual: “Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” (1Cr 2:13) The example is with testing what is excellent with that which differs:

Philippians 1:10 That ye may approve (dokimazo: test as in testing metals) things that are excellent (diaphero: that which differ); that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ; 
You aren't testing your metals against things that differ so you are with offense in your doctrine.

What is the difference between 'rebuke' and 'judge'?
By Chuckt (c) 5-31-2009

What is the difference between the word "rebuke" and the word "judge"?  Not much but the same word for "rebuke" in Revelation 3:19 is used in 1 Timothy 5:20, 2 Timothy 4:2, Titus 1:13, and Titus 2:15.

How many people have heard "judge not lest ye be judged"?  It is very Biblical.

Revelation 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke (elegchō) and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

1) to convict, refute, confute
a) generally with a suggestion of shame of the person convicted
b) by conviction to bring to the light, to expose
2) to find fault with, correct
a) by word
1) to reprehend severely, chide, admonish, reprove
2) to call to account, show one his fault, demand an explanation
b) by deed
1) to chasten, to punish

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1651&t=KJV


1 Timothy 5:20 Them that sin rebuke (elegchō) before all, that others also may fear.  

2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke (elegchō), exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 

Titus 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke (elegchō) them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;  

Titus 2:15 These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke (elegchō) with all authority. Let no man despise

Is there really a big difference?  Do you still believe the early church practiced "judge not lest ye be judged"?  I learned a lot in doing this study.





> Can anyone tell me when and who we are to judge???? ....Love bro. Joe



Isaiah 59:15 Yea, truth faileth; and he [that] departeth from evil maketh himself a prey: and the LORD saw [it], and it displeased him that [there was] no judgment 

John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

What was the direction given in the pastoral epistles? 

2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove (correct), rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 

Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove [them]. 

If we aren't salt of the earth then our relatioships won't be salt. 

Matthew 5:13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. 

The answer is if we are Jesus' disciples then we will accept reproof in our lives because we are told to repent and when we want to be Lord of our own lives then we are doulos (slaves) to sin which is why we should be the servant of all. When people don't want reproof in their life then they are saying they aren't willing to repent and they are Lord of their own life. 

Mark 10:44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest (prōtos, first), shall be servant (doulos, slave) of all. 

Judging is hard as you have to master the word of God and it requires that Christians grow up and set their heart upright and that is hard because we have limitations as human beings due to our sinfulness, from being finite and from being part of God's infiniteness and omnicience through illumination and impulse of His word and the impulse of His holy spirit. 

Genesis 4:9 And the LORD said unto Cain, Where [is] Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: [Am] I my brother's keeper? 

If we want to be first and not our brother's keeper then as a Christian we should be the doulos or slave (Mark 10:44) of all.


----------



## Gilligan

Chuckt said:


> You're 57?  Congratulations.  You learn something new every day.



That has always been a personal goal, in fact. In no small part, to avoid becoming..someone like you.


----------



## Chuckt

Gilligan said:


> That has always been a personal goal, in fact. In no small part, to avoid becoming..someone like you.



Yes and I posted ten links where apologetic ministries, lay people, a Christian magazine and others disagree with you on judging and I hope you learn something new today.


----------



## Gilligan

Chuckt said:


> Yes and I posted ten links where apologetic ministries, lay people, a Christian magazine and others disagree with you on judging and I hope you learn something new today.




Nice try. But a miss and a fail. Maybe you will someday learn why you actually do not influence anyone..at all. Or you could join Westboro and call it good.


----------



## PJay




----------



## Chuckt

Gilligan said:


> Nice try. But a miss and a fail. Maybe you will someday learn why you actually do not influence anyone..at all. Or you could join Westboro and call it good.



Saying it without any proof doesn't mean it is true.


----------



## Chuckt

PsyOps said:


> And humble to boot



1 Corinthians 1:29  That no flesh should glory in his presence. 

If Catholics are justified by works, isn't their flesh trying to glory in God's presence?


----------



## Gilligan

Chuckt said:


> Saying it without any proof doesn't mean it is true.



LOL. "Proof"   That invalid observation  in itself is proof enough that you have nothing to roll with.  You are definitely Westboro material. Or some other cults I could name that have , sorry for you, already left the planet on their on volition.


----------



## Chuckt

Gilligan said:


> LOL. "Proof"   That invalid observation  in itself is proof enough that you have nothing to roll with.  You are definitely Westboro material. Or some other cults I could name that have , sorry for you, already left the planet on their on volition.



I suppose you would consider any denomination or church inside protestantism a "cult".

Judge with Righteous Judgment

http://www.watchman.org/articles/other-religious-topics/judge-with-righteous-judgment/

This is a counter-cult ministry.  They have over 2,000 cults listed in their cult catalog and I stopped counting their number of cults after that.


----------



## Chuckt

*Was John judging those he refused to baptize?*



Gilligan said:


> LOL. "Proof"   That invalid observation  in itself is proof enough that you have nothing to roll with.  You are definitely Westboro material. Or some other cults I could name that have , sorry for you, already left the planet on their on volition.



Did John refuse to baptize those who didn't repent? (version 2)
By Chuckt © 1-18-2008

Was the John guilty of judging by refusing to baptize those who didn’t repent and how do you know who repented or not without judging?
Act 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and [then] to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

Mat 3:1 ¶ In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, 

Mat 3:2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. 

Mat 3:3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. 

He said that John the Baptist came in the Spirit of Esaias and "make his paths straight" resonates in my mind for some reason when it comes to repentance.

Mat 3:4 And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey. 

All the big shots, the well to do and religious dictators came out to hear John but John wasn't wearing clothes that the emergent Church would have worn back then in order to please them.

Mat 23:5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, 

Notice that John was wearing clothing other than those in the Catholic Church would have been wearing (clothes to fit in like the Pharisees) and it wasn't clothing to fit in.

Mat 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, 

Mat 3:6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. 

Mat 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 

Mat 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: 

If John said,"bring forth ..fruits meet for repentance" and called them vipers then did John refuse to baptize them? Should we baptize vipers or should we ask them to show fruit first? How should we treat those who want to be baptized in the Catholic Church? Repeat reading Matthew 3:8 for the answer.


----------



## Gilligan

Chuckt said:


> Did John refuse to baptize those who didn't repent? (version 2)
> By Chuckt © 1-18-2008
> 
> Was the John guilty of judging by refusing to baptize those who didn’t repent and how do you know who repented or not without judging?
> Act 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and [then] to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
> 
> Mat 3:1 ¶ In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,
> 
> Mat 3:2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
> 
> Mat 3:3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
> 
> He said that John the Baptist came in the Spirit of Esaias and "make his paths straight" resonates in my mind for some reason when it comes to repentance.
> 
> Mat 3:4 And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.
> 
> All the big shots, the well to do and religious dictators came out to hear John but John wasn't wearing clothes that the emergent Church would have worn back then in order to please them.
> 
> Mat 23:5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
> 
> Notice that John was wearing clothing other than those in the Catholic Church would have been wearing (clothes to fit in like the Pharisees) and it wasn't clothing to fit in.
> 
> Mat 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
> 
> Mat 3:6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.
> 
> Mat 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
> 
> Mat 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
> 
> If John said,"bring forth ..fruits meet for repentance" and called them vipers then did John refuse to baptize them? Should we baptize vipers or should we ask them to show fruit first? How should we treat those who want to be baptized in the Catholic Church? Repeat reading Matthew 3:8 for the answer.



Keeping your small-minded self pretty busy without any effort, .Love it. Carry on..I swear you are winning people over. You go boy.


----------



## Gilligan

Chuckt said:


> I suppose .



Never a good idea.


----------



## Chuckt

Gilligan said:


> Never a good idea.



Here is a partial list from the Christian Research Institute on judging:



> 1 Corinthians 5:1-8 Paul judges the unrepentant son who is sleeping
> with his step Mom.
> Acts 13:9-12 Paul condemns Elymas the sorcerer
> 2 Timothy 3:5 "Have nothing to do with them at the end" CLEARLY it
> requires judgment to discern that we shouldn't be with them.
> 2 Timothy 4:10 Shows Paul judging Demas.Titus 3:10 It takes discernment (Judgment) to deem necessary walking away.
> 1 TImothy 1:20 Hymenaus and Alexander judged by Paul.
> 1 Timothy 5:20-21 Public sin is to be PUBLICLY rebuked. To discern that
> something is a sin is clearly Judging.
> Galations 2:11-14 Paul PUBLICLY judges Peter.
> Proverbs 28:23 Gives favor to a man who rebukes.
> 2 Timothy 3:16 Scripture is to be used for rebuking (Judging).
> Titus 1:13 Paul commands rebuking to strengthen faith.
> 2 Timothy 4:2 Paul says a faithful servant is to rebuke.
> Titus 2:15 Paul says to rebuke with authority and NOT to let anyone
> despise you for it.
> How about another one from Jesus?
> Luke 17:3 "If your brother sins REBUKE him."
> Proverbs 17:10 The righteous are IMPRESSED by rebuke.
> Proverbs 9:8 Wise men LOVE rebuke.
> Proverbs 19:25 The wise gain knowledge from being rebuked.
> Proverbs 27:5 Open rebuke is better than hidden love.
> James 5:19-20 It requires discernment to deem if necessary to turn
> someone away from error.



-Christian Research Institute


----------



## Radiant1

Chuckt said:


> Are you saying that sin isn't willful?



No.

A good few of those verses are quite a stretch, but even so I could come up with just as many verses that say something different regarding judgment; however, I won't bother because you seem very adamant and justified in your self-righteousness. So be it, but don't ever say that myself and others didn't *REBUKE *you for your *PRIDE*. 



Chuckt said:


> 1 Corinthians 1:29  That no flesh should glory in his presence.
> 
> If Catholics are justified by works, isn't their flesh trying to glory in God's presence?



I already told you Catholics are justified by grace with scripture and CC quotes. To continue to say differently is to be intellectually dishonest at the least and deliberately deceitful at the worst. This is exactly why I dislike people like you. It's one thing to be truly ignorant of what Catholicism teaches and have the wrong impression; however, once educated you should cease and desist with the misinformation, but you choose not to do that and continue to propagate a lie.


----------



## Gilligan

Chuckt said:


> -Christian Research Institute



  But I'm a Druid....


----------



## Chuckt

Radiant1 said:


> No.
> 
> A good few of those verses are quite a stretch, but even so I could come up with just as many verses that say something different regarding judgment; however, I won't bother because you seem very adamant and justified in your self-righteousness. So be it, but don't ever say that myself and others didn't *REBUKE *you for your *PRIDE*.
> 
> 
> 
> I already told you Catholics are justified by grace with scripture and CC quotes. To continue to say differently is to be intellectually dishonest at the least and deliberately deceitful at the worst. This is exactly why I dislike people like you. It's one thing to be truly ignorant of what Catholicism teaches and have the wrong impression; however, once educated you should cease and desist with the misinformation, but you choose not to do that and continue to propagate a lie.



Revisionist history.  I've debated Catholics before and what you are saying is that all of them that came before you that debated me before were confused except you.


----------



## Chuckt

Gilligan said:


> But I'm a Druid....



Should Christians judge the teachings of their leaders?



> Not only is judging permissible, it is our responsibility. Nobody’s teachings are above sound judgment—especially those of influential leaders! Biblically, authority and accountability go hand in hand (cf. Luke 12:48). The greater the responsibility one holds, the greater the accountability (cf. James 3:1).



http://www.equip.org/bible_answers/should-christians-judge-the-teachings-of-their-leaders/


----------



## b23hqb

Radiant1 said:


> No.
> 
> A good few of those verses are quite a stretch, but even so I could come up with just as many verses that say something different regarding judgment; however, I won't bother because you seem very adamant and justified in your self-righteousness. So be it, but don't ever say that myself and others didn't *REBUKE *you for your *PRIDE*.
> 
> I already told you Catholics are justified by grace with scripture and CC quotes. To continue to say differently is to be intellectually dishonest at the least and deliberately deceitful at the worst. This is exactly why I dislike people like you. It's one thing to be truly ignorant of what Catholicism teaches and have the wrong impression; however, once educated you should cease and desist with the misinformation, but you choose not to do that and continue to propagate a lie.



No Chuckt is not being intellectually dishonest or deceitful. He is simply being biblical, and your catholic teachings themselves make it painfully clear that a Catholic's salvation cannot be attained without faith, baptism, and good works combined. It is not an instantaneous process of being saved, as the Bible teaches, but a long, Catholic process. 

Your cc's are very clear about that. Just agree to disagree. I have.


----------



## Chuckt

b23hqb said:


> No Chuckt is not being intellectually dishonest or deceitful. He is simply being biblical, and your catholic teachings themselves make it painfully clear that a Catholic's salvation cannot be attained without faith, baptism, and good works combined. It is not an instantaneous process of being saved, as the Bible teaches, but a long, Catholic process.
> 
> Your cc's are very clear about that. Just agree to disagree. I have.



Catholics have taught grace infused with works.  And if you can lose your salvation is Catholicism then you have to work for it (to maintain it).

https://carm.org/catholic-salvation-maintain


----------



## onel0126

Chuckt said:


> Catholics have taught grace infused with works.  And if you can lose your salvation is Catholicism then you have to work for it (to maintain it).  https://carm.org/catholic-salvation-maintain


    You do realize that MANY Protestants believe you can lose your salvation and that OSAS is a man made concept, right? the ones that do like b23 and probably you will call it "backsliding." You will also defend it by saying that if a Protestant turns his back on God forever then he was never really saved to begin with.  Kinda like George Costanza's shower--it didn't take.


----------



## b23hqb

onel0126 said:


> You do realize that MANY Protestants believe you can lose your salvation and that OSAS is a man made concept, right? the ones that don't like b23 and probably you will call it "backsliding." You will also defend it by saying that if a Protestant turns his back on God forever then he was never really saved to begin with.
> 
> Kinda like George Costanza's shower--it didn't take.



Check out some scriptures on eternal salvation again, onel. We've been over this before

John 5:24, John 6:37, 40, John 10:27-30, 17:2-3, 1 John 2:25, 5:11-13, Romans 6:23, Romans 11:29, 2 Cor 1:22, Hebrews 10:14 - etc.

If you are saved and God knows it, you are saved eternally - forever - regardless on where you end up here on earth. If you end up in front of the Great White Throne, you'll know you did not receive the gift of salvation because God never knew you. One who has been playing the game of a Christian will be realizing their lie.

If you're saved and screw up here on earth, you have to pay the earthly price of society, via pain, destitution, prison, execution, whatever.  Jesus has already paid the admission to heaven.

Once saved, always. Never saved, never saved. 

I have confidence in the Word of God, not in the word of man.


----------



## Gilligan

Chuckt said:


> Should Christians judge the teachings of their leaders?



What does that have to do with your misguided view that you, or anyone like you, are in a position to pass judgement on total strangers...or even close family and friends?


----------



## onel0126

b23hqb said:


> I have confidence in the Word of God, not in the word of man.


    So your confidence in the word of God doesn't apply to these then apparently...  John 3:5  Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.  In Mark 16:16 Jesus says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."  Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.


----------



## Radiant1

Chuckt said:


> Revisionist history.  I've debated Catholics before and what you are saying is that all of them that came before you that debated me before were confused except you.



We weren't discussing history, we did that previously in which you proved yourself woefully ignorant of it, so no revision necessary. I'm fairly certain that any Catholic apologist you may have come across did not say that Catholics are saved by works. You'll understand if I *don't* take your word for it.



b23hqb said:


> No Chuckt is not being intellectually dishonest or deceitful. He is simply being biblical, and your catholic teachings themselves make it painfully clear that a Catholic's salvation cannot be attained without faith, baptism, and good works combined. It is not an instantaneous process of being saved, as the Bible teaches, but a long, Catholic process.
> 
> Your cc's are very clear about that. Just agree to disagree. I have.



If he were honest he would acknowledge the teachings in which I showed him via scripture and CC. Apparently, the CC isn't clear enough because you're confused.

What's your definition of "biblical", your interpretation thereof? Here, read this: http://forums.somd.com/threads/300478-The-Protestant-Conundrum?p=5535841#post5535841



Chuckt said:


> Catholics have taught grace infused with works.  And if you can lose your salvation is Catholicism then you have to work for it (to maintain it).
> 
> https://carm.org/catholic-salvation-maintain



There is the infused vs imputed righteousness argument, justification vs salvation. We can go round and round using scripture itself on that (it's been done here before), but let me ask you something. Do you consider repentance a "work"? If so, then why, as you claim in this thread, did you repent? Surely, if that makes Catholics guilty of salvation by works, then you're right there with us and guilty of what you accuse us of.



b23hqb said:


> If you are saved and God knows it, you are saved eternally - forever - regardless on where you end up here on earth. If you end up in front of the Great White Throne, you'll know you did not receive the gift of salvation because God never knew you. One who has been playing the game of a Christian will be realizing their lie.
> 
> If you're saved and screw up here on earth, you have to pay the earthly price of society, via pain, destitution, prison, execution, whatever.  Jesus has already paid the admission to heaven.
> 
> Once saved, always. Never saved, never saved.



In other words, you don't know if you're saved, Sally's saved, Chuckie's saved, or I'm saved until the end, which is all fine and good with me. Personally, I think you and Chuckie are playing at Christian. I guess you'll find out eventually whether I'm right or not, eh?



b23hqb said:


> I have confidence in the Word of God, not in the word of man.



No, you have confidence in your own personal interpretations of the Word of God. If you haven't already read it, here; and if you have, read it again: http://forums.somd.com/threads/300478-The-Protestant-Conundrum?p=5535841#post5535841


----------



## Chuckt

onel0126 said:


> You do realize that MANY Protestants believe you can lose your salvation and that OSAS is a man made concept, right? the ones that do like b23 and probably you will call it "backsliding." You will also defend it by saying that if a Protestant turns his back on God forever then he was never really saved to begin with.  Kinda like George Costanza's shower--it didn't take.



Salvation is a gift and a backslider may just possess the gift of eternal life for having faith and believing.

I don't believe that a person who is saved can lose their salvation.  

John 5:24	¶	Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, ****hath**** everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

The verse doesn't say "might have" or "could have" but "hath" everlasting life.

Romans 10:9	 	That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

I know of a website that will let me argue in depth with quoted material.  What I'm saying to you is, I've debated this before and I have pages and pages of material that I used to prove it.


----------



## Chuckt

Gilligan said:


> What does that have to do with your misguided view that you, or anyone like you, are in a position to pass judgement on total strangers...or even close family and friends?



What is a disciple?  Can we qualify?  I think we can qualify.

The right was given to disciples:

John 20:23	 	Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

So if you don't believe the gospel that Paul preached then I have a right to say your sins are retained but if you confess with your mouth then I could say, "your sins are remitted" by the authority of the word of God.


----------



## Chuckt

onel0126 said:


> So your confidence in the word of God doesn't apply to these then apparently...  John 3:5  Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.  In Mark 16:16 Jesus says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."  Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.



Do you know what the word "but" means?  It is an excuse or it means "forget everything I said before" because the verse says, "he that believeth not shall be damned" and it doesn't say, "he that is baptized not shall be damned".
John 3:16 already specifies that "whomsoever believeth on him" should not perish.

The art of Bible interpretation is to interpret the hard to understand verses (implicit) from the clear and easy to understand verses first like John 3:16, John 5:24, etc.


----------



## Chuckt

Radiant1 said:


> We weren't discussing history, we did that previously in which you proved yourself woefully ignorant of it, so no revision necessary. I'm fairly certain that any Catholic apologist you may have come across did not say that Catholics are saved by works. You'll understand if I *don't* take your word for it.
> 
> 
> 
> If he were honest he would acknowledge the teachings in which I showed him via scripture and CC. Apparently, the CC isn't clear enough because you're confused.
> 
> What's your definition of "biblical", your interpretation thereof? Here, read this: http://forums.somd.com/threads/300478-The-Protestant-Conundrum?p=5535841#post5535841
> 
> 
> 
> There is the infused vs imputed righteousness argument, justification vs salvation. We can go round and round using scripture itself on that (it's been done here before), but let me ask you something. Do you consider repentance a "work"? If so, then why, as you claim in this thread, did you repent? Surely, if that makes Catholics guilty of salvation by works, then you're right there with us and guilty of what you accuse us of.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you don't know if you're saved, Sally's saved, Chuckie's saved, or I'm saved until the end, which is all fine and good with me. Personally, I think you and Chuckie are playing at Christian. I guess you'll find out eventually whether I'm right or not, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> No, you have confidence in your own personal interpretations of the Word of God. If you haven't already read it, here; and if you have, read it again: http://forums.somd.com/threads/300478-The-Protestant-Conundrum?p=5535841#post5535841



Repentance is a step and not a work in the sense that I understand it but people can misuse a verse and use repentance as a work and there are works of repentance.
Other Catholics have specifically argued James 2:14, 17 with me to the point where I wrote twenty pages on it and I am looking foward to putting it into an Ebook on Amazon but I need more pages to publish a book but publishing takes time.


----------



## Radiant1

Chuckt said:


> Repentance is a step and *not a work *in the sense that I understand it



I'm not sure how you differentiate the two, but that's ok. That's all I needed to hear you say.


----------



## Gilligan

Chuckt said:


> What is a disciple?  Can we qualify?  I think we can qualify.
> 
> The right was given to disciples:
> 
> .




Oh..so you're a "disciple". Is there an entrance exam? Does that pay well?


----------



## Gilligan

Chuckt said:


> The art of.



And you're an artist too??  A man of so many talents...


----------



## Chuckt

Gilligan said:


> Oh..so you're a "disciple". Is there an entrance exam? Does that pay well?



What you may do today may be your only retirement plan in heaven until you are given a new opportunity to serve the Lord so that is all the reward you are going to get.  What you do here for God is your 401K plan in heaven.

On earth, it only costs me to be a disciple.


----------



## Gilligan

Chuckt said:


> What you may do today may be your only retirement plan in heaven until you are given a new opportunity to serve the Lord so that is all the reward you are going to get.  What you do here for God is your 401K plan in heaven.
> 
> On earth, it only costs me to be a disciple.



I've got this really nice hand basket already picked out.


----------



## PsyOps

Chuckt said:


> Salvation is a gift and a backslider may just possess the gift of eternal life for having faith and believing.
> 
> I don't believe that a person who is saved can lose their salvation.
> 
> John 5:24	¶	Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, ****hath**** everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
> 
> The verse doesn't say "might have" or "could have" but "hath" everlasting life.
> 
> Romans 10:9	 	That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
> 
> I know of a website that will let me argue in depth with quoted material.  What I'm saying to you is, I've debated this before and I have pages and pages of material that I used to prove it.



In this context, what does the word "believe" mean to you?


----------



## b23hqb

PsyOps said:


> In this context, what does the word "believe" mean to you?



I know you're not asking me that, but exactly what are you aiming at? In context of what specifically?


----------



## Bird Dog

b23hqb said:


> I know you're not asking me that, but exactly what are you aiming at? In context of what specifically?



Just answer the damn question. You wackos love to answer a question with a question. You think it makes you look intelligent, but it makes you look more confused that you already are.


----------



## onel0126

Bird Dog said:


> Just answer the damn question. You wackos love to answer a question with a question. You think it makes you look intelligent, but it makes you look more confused that you already are.


      I'm still waiting for b23 to post the url for his place of worship.  I'm also waiting for b23 and chucky or anyone to answer my oh so elementary question of if Luther fixed the ills of the church, why aren't all Protestants Lutherans. No really I'm being serious. If all Protestants agree on the major tenets of Christianity (which they don't) then why all of the divisiveness and need for 33k denominations all scrambling for a piece of the Protestant pie?


----------



## stgislander

onel0126 said:


> I'm still waiting for b23 to post the url for his place of worship.  I'm also waiting for b23 and chucky or anyone to answer my oh so elementary question of if Luther fixed the ills of the church, why aren't all Protestants Lutherans. No really I'm being serious. If all Protestants agree on the major tenets of Christianity (which they don't) then why all of the divisiveness and need for 33k denominations all scrambling for a piece of the Protestant pie?



Luther may get credit for being the father of the Reformation, but there was also Zwingli to deal with.  Luther and Zwingli couldn't find agreement from the very beginning on things like the nature of the Eucharist and images, hence the difference between Lutheran and Reformed Protestants.  But then everyone already knows this.


----------



## Bird Dog

onel0126 said:


> I'm still waiting for b23 to post the url for his place of worship.  I'm also waiting for b23 and chucky or anyone to answer my oh so elementary question of if Luther fixed the ills of the church, why aren't all Protestants Lutherans. No really I'm being serious. If all Protestants agree on the major tenets of Christianity (which they don't) then why all of the divisiveness and need for 33k denominations all scrambling for a piece of the Protestant pie?



Just look at St. Mary's County alone
http://somd.com/worship/


----------



## PsyOps

b23hqb said:


> I know you're not asking me that, but exactly what are you aiming at? In context of what specifically?



You're trying to get me to answer the question for Chuck.  I want to see what he says the words 'believe' mean between the two verses he quoted.  A lot of people don't get the real meaning of Greek as it is translated to English.


----------



## Gilligan

I believe.....


...that it's time to pop the top on a Corona....


----------



## onel0126

stgislander said:


> Luther may get credit for being the father of the Reformation, but there was also Zwingli to deal with.  Luther and Zwingli couldn't find agreement from the very beginning on things like the nature of the Eucharist and images, hence the difference between Lutheran and Reformed Protestants.  But then everyone already knows this.



As you alluded to yes everyone knows this. But 33,000 and growing and they're still splintering. Christ is not happy


----------



## stgislander

onel0126 said:


> As you alluded to yes everyone knows this. But 33,000 and growing and they're still splintering. Christ is not happy



When the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches reunite, then we can talk.


----------



## Bird Dog

stgislander said:


> When the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches reunite, then we can talk.



OK its nice you know your history, but 1,000 years aqo....come on.

......and its only two, not 33,000 and growing


----------



## Gilligan

onel0126 said:


> As you alluded to yes everyone knows this.



I didn't know that.


----------



## Chuckt

PsyOps said:


> In this context, what does the word "believe" mean to you?



Believe is Strong's # 4100 and it is the same word in John 3:16, John 5:24 and translated "commit" in John 2:24.  The same faith that I put in a chair is the same faith that I put in Jesus.

John 2:24	 	But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,

http://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=2&v=24&t=KJV#conc/24

And I have fear in the Lord.  Do I chose to do something wrong when no one is watching or do I do what is right?  If you believe God is watching, you might have some fear of God from what you are doing.

Hebrews 12:8	 	But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

Do you think I can get away with anything with God?  If you aren't a son of God then maybe you can get away with it for a time without being disciplined.  My life has people troubling me so I can look to God.
Why does God allow evil?  So you can have a reason to look to Him and be saved.

Belief in God is also the same coin as repentance.  

When we look to God, we are turning towards Him and sometimes repentance is a result of belief so when we look towards God, we often turn from something like sin.

There are more lessons in the Bible and they are right in front of you if you would only look.  I also ran in to people trying to disprove what some people believe in salvation and I have an apologetic that what people are dismissing is actually faith in God.


----------



## Chuckt

onel0126 said:


> I'm still waiting for b23 to post the url for his place of worship.  I'm also waiting for b23 and chucky or anyone to answer my oh so elementary question of if Luther fixed the ills of the church, why aren't all Protestants Lutherans. No really I'm being serious. If all Protestants agree on the major tenets of Christianity (which they don't) then why all of the divisiveness and need for 33k denominations all scrambling for a piece of the Protestant pie?



I'm not claiming that Luther fixed the ills of the Church.  I'm not Lutheran but that is another discussion.  I have a book called "Charts of Christian Theology" by Wayne House and I don't hold to some of the things that Lutherans believe.


----------



## Chuckt

onel0126 said:


> I'm still waiting for b23 to post the url for his place of worship.  I'm also waiting for b23 and chucky or anyone to answer my oh so elementary question of if Luther fixed the ills of the church, why aren't all Protestants Lutherans. No really I'm being serious. If all Protestants agree on the major tenets of Christianity (which they don't) then why all of the divisiveness and need for 33k denominations all scrambling for a piece of the Protestant pie?



What about the internal evidence test?  Can you test the Catholic church against the Bible?  You can't because they lose at it which is why they no longer sear by the Bible and I have a Biblical argument for you.

King James Bible
Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones.
http://biblehub.com/zechariah/13-7.htm

'smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered'.  What happened when Jesus was smitten?  And does the internal evidence show that the Catholic church scattered or did Christians....you know.  the 33,000 protestant denominations represent the internal evidence of being scattered?  Does the Catholic church represent a scattered Church?  I think you can't answer it to my satisfaction and this is where Catholics who wanted to use my knowledge to help their church fight protestantism actually cut their conversation with me because they don't want their flock to hear the truth.  Keep arguing against the 33,000 protestant denominations and you may hear this argument again and you may be asked about it.  Do you have a good answer?  No one has ever seriously given me an answer.


----------



## onel0126

Chuckt said:


> I don't hold to some of the things that Lutherans believe.



Thank you and goodnight. Splintered factions with no central deposit of faith. Holy crap just admit it.


----------



## onel0126

Chuckt said:


> And does the internal evidence show that the Catholic church scattered or did Christians....you know.  the 33,000 protestant denominations represent the internal evidence of being scattered?  Does the Catholic church represent a scattered Church?  I think you can't answer it to my satisfaction and this is where Catholics who wanted to use my knowledge to help their church fight protestantism actually cut their conversation with me because they don't want their flock to hear the truth.  Keep arguing against the 33,000 protestant denominations and you may hear this argument again and you may be asked about it.  Do you have a good answer?  No one has ever seriously given me an answer.



Maybe it because it's early and I've only had one cup of coffee but this reads as jibberish. What the hell are you actually trying to ask?


----------



## hotcoffee

onel0126 said:


> I'm also waiting for b23 and chucky or anyone to answer my oh so elementary question of if Luther fixed the ills of the church, why aren't all Protestants Lutherans. No really I'm being serious. If all Protestants agree on the major tenets of Christianity (which they don't) then why all of the divisiveness and need for 33k denominations all scrambling for a piece of the Protestant pie?



Ok... I'll bite...

It seems to me that Luther only opened the door for us to actually study the Scriptures for ourselves, in prayer, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. 

AND... When we, in prayer, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, read how the church is supposed to be run.... it leaves us with options.  

One option, the one I have chosen of late, is to stay away from all brick and mortar churches and depend on the Word.


----------



## stgislander

hotcoffee said:


> Ok... I'll bite...
> 
> It seems to me that Luther only opened the door for us to actually study the Scriptures for ourselves, in prayer, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
> 
> AND... When we, in prayer, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, read how the church is supposed to be run.... it leaves us with options.
> 
> One option, the one I have chosen of late, is to stay away from all brick and mortar churches and depend on the Word.



A few of the histories of Luther I've read stated that he had one regret after translating the Bible into German.  People would read passages thinking they meant something entirely different from what the established understanding at the time.  Luther felt it was the clergy's duty to instruct the laity on the meaning of what they were reading.  Sort of like the story of Philip and the Eunuch.


----------



## Gilligan

stgislander said:


> ..... the Eunuch.



Hmm. My ex used to call me that.


----------



## onel0126

stgislander said:


> A few of the histories of Luther I've read stated that he had one regret after translating the Bible into German.


   Your assertion that he had one regret is an understatement at best. Dozens at the least, and the fact that he called for a priest (but was denied this request) on his death bed speaks volumes...

http://www.thecatholictreasurechest.com/reform.htm


----------



## stgislander

onel0126 said:


> Your assertion that he had one regret is an understatement at best. Dozens at the least, and the fact that he called for a priest (but was denied this request) on his death bed speaks volumes...
> 
> http://www.thecatholictreasurechest.com/reform.htm



  That's like referencing HuffPo when discussing conservatives.


----------



## Salvador

stgislander said:


> That's like referencing HuffPo when discussing conservatives.



Or Ace of Spades discussing liberals


----------



## onel0126

stgislander said:


> That's like referencing HuffPo when discussing conservatives.


    How so when the link quotes Luther himself?


----------



## PsyOps

Chuckt said:


> Believe is Strong's # 4100 and it is the same word in John 3:16, John 5:24 and translated "commit" in John 2:24.  The same faith that I put in a chair is the same faith that I put in Jesus.
> 
> John 2:24	 	But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men,
> 
> http://www.blbclassic.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=2&v=24&t=KJV#conc/24
> 
> And I have fear in the Lord.  Do I chose to do something wrong when no one is watching or do I do what is right?  If you believe God is watching, you might have some fear of God from what you are doing.
> 
> Hebrews 12:8	 	But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
> 
> Do you think I can get away with anything with God?  If you aren't a son of God then maybe you can get away with it for a time without being disciplined.  My life has people troubling me so I can look to God.
> Why does God allow evil?  So you can have a reason to look to Him and be saved.
> 
> Belief in God is also the same coin as repentance.
> 
> When we look to God, we are turning towards Him and sometimes repentance is a result of belief so when we look towards God, we often turn from something like sin.
> 
> There are more lessons in the Bible and they are right in front of you if you would only look.  I also ran in to people trying to disprove what some people believe in salvation and I have an apologetic that what people are dismissing is actually faith in God.



This is what I was looking for.  You referenced John 5:24 in terms of “believing” and Romans 10:9.  Funny thing is, the words are two different words in the Greek but translate to the same word in English; therefore they get conflated into one meaning.

The term ‘believe’ in John is to ‘commit’ one’s life to precepts of Christ

The term ‘believe’ in Romans is to ‘acknowledge’ that something happened.  

Most folks look at the words the same and apply the generic definition of ‘believe’, which is to ‘acknowledge’; therefore consider themselves Christians by simply acknowledging that Christ exists, without actually committing to the life-changes that come with being saved.  I’ve been to far too many churches that don’t bother with these word studies.


----------



## stgislander

onel0126 said:


> How so when the link quotes Luther himself?


----------



## Gilligan

stgislander said:


>



What?....I have a copy of the CD..you want to borrow it? He prattles on for hours....


----------



## onel0126

Complete heresy but funny as hell!

http://youtu.be/dt5AJr0wls0


----------



## stgislander

onel0126 said:


> Complete heresy but funny as hell!
> 
> http://youtu.be/dt5AJr0wls0



I got a good laugh from that.


----------



## Chuckt

PsyOps said:


> This is what I was looking for.  You referenced John 5:24 in terms of “believing” and Romans 10:9.  Funny thing is, the words are two different words in the Greek but translate to the same word in English; therefore they get conflated into one meaning.
> 
> The term ‘believe’ in John is to ‘commit’ one’s life to precepts of Christ
> 
> The term ‘believe’ in Romans is to ‘acknowledge’ that something happened.
> 
> Most folks look at the words the same and apply the generic definition of ‘believe’, which is to ‘acknowledge’; therefore consider themselves Christians by simply acknowledging that Christ exists, without actually committing to the life-changes that come with being saved.  I’ve been to far too many churches that don’t bother with these word studies.



New International Version
"Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven.

http://biblehub.com/matthew/10-32.htm

Matthew 10:33   But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.  

You're trying to say that if man isn't sanctified then he can't come but God sees things not as though they were.  In other words, he quickeneth the dead.  What can dead people do?  Nothing.  But then He (God) called them.  How can they answer if they are dead?  He quickens them which means that God is in charge of sanctification and it isn't your work to do in order to get saved because God saves them and then changes them at God's speed and God is very patient and longsuffering.

King James Bible
(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and *calleth those things which be not as though they were*.
http://biblehub.com/romans/4-17.htm

So the beauty of it is that even people who are wrecks can come to Jesus and He will save them.


----------



## Bird Dog

Chuckt said:


> Does the Catholic church represent a scattered Church?  I think you can't answer it to my satisfaction and this is where Catholics who wanted to use my knowledge to help their church fight protestantism actually cut their conversation with me because they don't want their flock to hear the truth.  Keep arguing against the 33,000 protestant denominations and you may hear this argument again and you may be asked about it.  Do you have a good answer?  No one has ever seriously given me an answer.



You are still quite full of yourself.
Why do ask a question and tell the recipient, before answering they cannot answer to your satisfaction?
Catholics who "wanted to use your knowledge". I think not.
No one will ever give you a good answer, because you don't listen to anyone. You know iit all. You just repeat your psycho-babble and tell everyone how great you are.
Catholics wanting to use your knowledge, that was your best post yet.......not.


----------



## Gilligan

Chuckt said:


> What can dead people do?  Nothing. .



pffft. Zombies, man..they become zombies. The living dead. Do you own lots of firearms?. It's your only hope.


----------



## Chuckt

Bird Dog said:


> You are still quite full of yourself.
> Why do ask a question and tell the recipient, before answering they cannot answer to your satisfaction?
> Catholics who "wanted to use your knowledge". I think not.
> No one will ever give you a good answer, because you don't listen to anyone. You know iit all. You just repeat your psycho-babble and tell everyone how great you are.
> Catholics wanting to use your knowledge, that was your best post yet.......not.



Because a bishop in my area emailed me, asked me to provide the arguments and I realized he was really using me to provide material so his parish could develop a training program against Christians.  So if one of your bishops couldn't or wouldn't answer my question then what hope do I have at having it answered?

The rest of your response is an ad-hominem.


----------



## Chuckt

onel0126 said:


> Thank you and goodnight. Splintered factions with no central deposit of faith. Holy crap just admit it.



Have you ever actually read any of Luther's books?


----------



## Gilligan

Chuckt said:


> Because a bishop in my area emailed me, asked me to provide the arguments and I realized he was really using me to provide material so his parish could develop a training program against Christians.


Bullship.


----------



## Gilligan

Chuckt said:


> Have you ever actually read any of Luther's books?



No..but I've listened to his tapes.


----------



## stgislander

Gilligan said:


> No..but I've listened to his tapes.



Man... I love this song.


----------



## Bird Dog

Chuckt said:


> Because a bishop in my area emailed me, asked me to provide the arguments and I realized he was really using me to provide material so his parish could develop a training program against Christians.  So if one of your bishops couldn't or wouldn't answer my question then what hope do I have at having it answered?
> 
> The rest of your response is an ad-hominem.



Bearing false witness is also a sin......you need to STFU before your damned


----------



## Bird Dog

Chuckt said:


> Because a bishop in my area emailed me, asked me to provide the arguments and I realized he was really using me to provide material so his parish could develop a training program against Christians.  So if one of your bishops couldn't or wouldn't answer my question then what hope do I have at having it answered?
> 
> The rest of your response is an ad-hominem.



Send  a copy of the email.......


----------



## Chuckt

Bird Dog said:


> Send  a copy of the email.......



Answer the scripture question.


----------



## hotcoffee

stgislander said:


> A few of the histories of Luther I've read stated that he had one regret after translating the Bible into German.  People would read passages thinking they meant something entirely different from what the established understanding at the time.  Luther felt it was the clergy's duty to instruct the laity on the meaning of what they were reading.  Sort of like the story of Philip and the Eunuch.



That's why I said we were to study the Scriptures for ourselves, *in prayer, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit*.

I guess the important part here is to teach the new Christians about prayer and guidance of the Holy Spirit, if we're to avoid the problem Luther brought up.


----------



## onel0126

Chuckt said:


> Because a bishop in my area emailed me, asked me to provide the arguments and I realized he was really using me to provide material so his parish could develop a training program against Christians.


    A Roman Catholic Bishop?  I won't ask you to post the email but what was this Bishops name? Or is he one of those covert CIA Bishops trained to wipe out Christians?


----------



## Gilligan

onel0126 said:


> Or is he one of those covert CIA Bishops trained to wipe out Christians?




oooo..I've heard about those guys. In a Tom Cruze movie I think it was.....or was it Tom Hanks....


----------



## stgislander

Gilligan said:


> oooo..I've heard about those guys. In a Tom Cruze movie I think it was.....or was it Tom Hanks....



You're thinking Monty Python.


----------



## Gilligan

oh..right..that's it.


----------



## Chuckt

onel0126 said:


> A Roman Catholic Bishop?  I won't ask you to post the email but what was this Bishops name? Or is he one of those covert CIA Bishops trained to wipe out Christians?



1 John 4:18	 	There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.


----------



## onel0126

Chuckt said:


> 1 John 4:18	 	There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.



Confucius say "He who fart in Church sit in pew..."


----------



## Gilligan

Chuckt said:


> fear hath torment. .



You are talking about my ex wife obviously.


----------



## Bird Dog

OK, so everyone who called me out on saying Chuckt was a Fundy Wacko, I will accept your apologies now....


----------



## Chuckt

Gilligan said:


> You are talking about my ex wife obviously.



In that case, you shouldn't use her to complain about because the Bible says that tribulation worketh patience and if you are patient, you wouldn't find a reason to complain.

Romans 5:3


----------



## Chuckt

Bird Dog said:


> OK, so everyone who called me out on saying Chuckt was a Fundy Wacko, I will accept your apologies now....



Don't quit your day job because your joke isn't funny.


----------



## Gilligan

Chuckt said:


> Don't quit your day job because your joke isn't funny.




It wasn't a joke, Chucky


----------



## Chuckt

Gilligan said:


> It wasn't a joke, Chucky



Oh I know.  You were testing me


----------



## Bird Dog

Gilligan said:


> It wasn't a joke, Chucky



Thanks for splainin' it for him


----------



## Gilligan

Bird Dog said:


> Thanks for splainin' it for him



I'm thinking he's impervious.


----------



## Chuckt

Gilligan said:


> I'm thinking he's impervious.



Irrelevant are the comments against me.


----------



## Chuckt

Bird Dog said:


> Thanks for splainin' it for him



It says more about others who would make such comments than me.


----------



## Chuckt

*I will be happy.*



Bird Dog said:


> Thanks for splainin' it for him



I will be Happy.

[video=youtube;BytmXChURdM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BytmXChURdM[/video]


----------



## PsyOps

Chuckt said:


> Irrelevant are the comments against me.



So, in that same thinking, irrelevant are the comments you make against others.


----------



## Gilligan

Chuckt said:


> Irrelevant are the comments against me.



LMAO..so we're even. My posts are irrelevant to you..your posts are totally irrelevant to me and everyone else.  I love symmetry.


----------



## Gilligan

Chuckt said:


> I will be Happy.



Just keep up with your meds..you'll be OK.

Maybe.


----------



## Chuckt

Gilligan said:


> LMAO..so we're even. My posts are irrelevant to you..your posts are totally irrelevant to me and everyone else.  I love symmetry.



I pray that your posts aren't wood, hay or stubble.

1 Cor 3:12


----------



## Chuckt

Gilligan said:


> Just keep up with your meds..you'll be OK.
> 
> Maybe.



Psalm 34:8. O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.


----------



## onel0126

Chuckt said:


> Psalm 34:8. O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.



An OT reference to the Eucharist...Love it!


----------



## Gilligan

Chuckt said:


> I pray that your posts aren't wood, hay or stubble.
> 
> 1 Cor 3:12


----------



## GURPS

Chuckt said:


> Irrelevant are the comments against me.





the ... I'm rubber and you are glue, argument


----------



## Chuckt

onel0126 said:


> An OT reference to the Eucharist...Love it!





> Cannibalism is mentioned several times in Scripture (Leviticus 26:29; Deuteronomy 28:53-57; Jeremiah 19:9; Lamentations 2:20; 4:10; Ezekiel 5:10), but in each case, the practice is regarded as a horrible curse and inhuman act of desperation.



http://www.gotquestions.org/cannibalism-Bible.html


----------



## b23hqb

Chuckt said:


> http://www.gotquestions.org/cannibalism-Bible.html





Hey, Chuckt - time to give it up, dude, on this topic. I personally have no disagreement with your premises. Many, many are afraid of the message, so they attack the messenger. What you have accomplished, though, is bringing some people in here that are rarely, if ever, on this religion forum. Hopefully they have been exposed to scripture that may make them think some instead of just lashing out. Many think there is more than one way for salvation. They will be sorely disappointed at the great white throne of Revelation 20:11-15.

After this amount of time, just agree to disagree and move on to something else.


----------



## Chuckt

b23hqb said:


> Hey, Chuckt - time to give it up, dude, on this topic. I personally have no disagreement with your premises. Many, many are afraid of the message, so they attack the messenger. What you have accomplished, though, is bringing some people in here that are rarely, if ever, on this religion forum. Hopefully they have been exposed to scripture that may make them think some instead of just lashing out. Many think there is more than one way for salvation. They will be sorely disappointed at the great white throne of Revelation 20:11-15.
> 
> After this amount of time, just agree to disagree and move on to something else.



Whatever happened to what God said?  Whatever happened to doing what God said or to say what God said in His word?

Jude 1:3	¶	Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

If God's word says to contend for the faith then why shouldn't I contend?



> signifies "to contend about a thing, as a combatant" (epi, "upon or about," intensive, agon, "a contest"), "to contend earnestly," Jud 1:3. The word "earnestly" is added to convey the intensive force of the preposition.


-Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words.

These are just words but if I can't contend through words then why should I follow God at all?  Are your ways better than God's ways?  Do you know better than God?  Do you know why people don't listen to Christians?  Because it isn't the dominant voice because you are all too nice to let them know there is the truth.  If you're nice then you aren't giving them the truth.  Being tolerant is a judgment because it is tolerating fiction as if it was equal to the truth in the name of love and then love stops being love because the lie doesn't protect because you are being tolerant.

Some people are so nice that I go through life and no one tells me the gospel so if no one tells me the gospel then what chance would I have to go to heaven when people are too nice?

Do you know where the word "nice" really means "foolish"?



> Word History Five hundred years ago, when nice was first used in English, it meant "foolish or stupid." This is not as surprising as it may seem, since it came through early French from the Latin nescius, meaning "ignorant." By the 16th century, the sense of being "very particular" or "finicky" had developed.



http://www.wordcentral.com/cgi-bin/student_clean?va=nice

Nice is no longer a virtue when it doesn't tell the truth but in the last 500 years, ignorant and agreeable came to mean "nice".


----------



## Radiant1

Chuckt said:


> Do you know why people don't listen to Christians?
> 
> If you're nice then you aren't giving them the truth.



People don't listen to *you* because you're a dick. 

You can "preach" the gospel with your actions, and you can spread the gospel in your words without ever having to quote chapter and verse. People are going to pay attention to what you do, and if you attempt to bible-thump your way down their throat they will turn away from your message. 

Jesus wasn't a dick, so stop being a dick.


----------



## Gilligan

Radiant1 said:


> People don't listen to *you* because you're a dick.
> 
> You can "preach" the gospel with your actions, and you can spread the gospel in your words without ever having to quote chapter and verse. People are going to pay attention to what you do, and if you attempt to bible-thump your way down their throat they will turn away from your message.
> 
> Jesus wasn't a dick, so stop being a dick.



Bingo.   But I'll bet a fiver that Chuckee won't "get it".


----------



## PsyOps

Radiant1 said:


> People don't listen to *you* because you're a dick.
> 
> You can "preach" the gospel with your actions, and you can spread the gospel in your words without ever having to quote chapter and verse. People are going to pay attention to what you do, and if you attempt to bible-thump your way down their throat they will turn away from your message.
> 
> Jesus wasn't a dick, so stop being a dick.



I’m not sure I would use ‘dick’ to describe Chuck or anyone else for that matter.  But Jesus held nothing back in criticizing the conventional religious thinking of those days.  He used some really strong language against the Sanhedrin and the leaders of the Synagogues.  He was so harsh that they put him to death.  Choose what word you want, but Jesus was not liked.

I think it’s fair for each of us to question denominations and their practices; but that should end at condemning folks to hell.  None of us can claim to know another’s heart and their salvation.


----------



## Chuckt

Radiant1 said:


> People don't listen to *you* because you're a dick.
> 
> You can "preach" the gospel with your actions, and you can spread the gospel in your words without ever having to quote chapter and verse. People are going to pay attention to what you do, and if you attempt to bible-thump your way down their throat they will turn away from your message.
> 
> Jesus wasn't a dick, so stop being a dick.



If you want to compare me to Jesus, you have to stop using profanity.  Jesus used strong words but they didn't qualified as profanity.
Jesus' love would have been patient and kind.

Jesus told His disciples to love one another which you aren't doing and He said that other people would know you by your love which you do not do.  The Bible teaches us to treat others with gentleness and respect which you need to do.


----------



## Radiant1

PsyOps said:


> I’m not sure I would use ‘dick’ to describe Chuck or anyone else for that matter.  But Jesus held nothing back in criticizing the conventional religious thinking of those days.  He used some really strong language against the Sanhedrin and the leaders of the Synagogues.  He was so harsh that they put him to death.  Choose what word you want, but Jesus was not liked.
> 
> I think it’s fair for each of us to question denominations and their practices; but that should end at condemning folks to hell.  None of us can claim to know another’s heart and their salvation.




Well, if we're going to make that comparison...Protestant fundamentalists and their conventional practice of pointing fingers at fellow Christians and being so extraordinarily rigid with their biblical interpretations is very much like the Sanhedrin and Jewish leaders of Jesus' day, and also like those Jewish leaders they like to claim who is or is not in God's good graces.

Btw, I don't think Jesus was put to death because he was *so harsh* to the Jewish leaders, but rather because He claimed to be the Messiah, which did not equate with their own interpretation of the OT scriptures. No doubt when Chuck and others like him condemn others [us] to hell they might as well be nailing them [us] to a cross.





Chuckt said:


> If you want to compare me to Jesus, you have to stop using profanity.  Jesus used strong words but they didn't qualified as profanity.
> Jesus' love would have been patient and kind.



Hey, you are what you are. I'm not in the least bit sorry if it offends you. What some call profanity others call descriptive and apt words.



Chuckt said:


> Jesus told His disciples to love one another which you aren't doing and He said that other people would know you by your love which you do not do.  The Bible teaches us to treat others with gentleness and respect which you need to do.



Of course I love you Chuck! If I didn't I wouldn't have tried to help you be a better evangelist. You asked why no one listened and I told you. According to you, I'm scripturally justified in not being nice about it, or is that reserved for you alone? Regardless, there you have it -- I love you therefore I'm going to be mean to you.


----------



## Gilligan

Anyone take my bet?  I guess not..the odds were all in my favor.


----------



## Chuckt

Radiant1 said:


> Well, if we're going to make that comparison...Protestant fundamentalists and their conventional practice of pointing fingers at fellow Christians and being so extraordinarily rigid with their biblical interpretations is very much like the Sanhedrin and Jewish leaders of Jesus' day, and also like those Jewish leaders they like to claim who is or is not in God's good graces.
> 
> Btw, I don't think Jesus was put to death because he was *so harsh* to the Jewish leaders, but rather because He claimed to be the Messiah, which did not equate with their own interpretation of the OT scriptures. No doubt when Chuck and others like him condemn others [us] to hell they might as well be nailing them [us] to a cross.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, you are what you are. I'm not in the least bit sorry if it offends you. What some call profanity others call descriptive and apt words.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I love you Chuck! If I didn't I wouldn't have tried to help you be a better evangelist. You asked why no one listened and I told you. According to you, I'm scripturally justified in not being nice about it, or is that reserved for you alone? Regardless, there you have it -- I love you therefore I'm going to be mean to you.



Radiant,

It is because I care.  I think there will be both Protestant and Catholics in Hell and there is no Pergatory so my motive is to tell people what I believe and I base it on a lot of research on the Bible.  But people are going to understand on judgment day that they thought they knew something about God when they didn't and I can use logic to try to figure out God or the scriptures when sometimes the only correct way is through God illuminating His Word, God revealing or inspiration of His word or just God's word speaking for itself and letting the scripture say what it says.

The point I was making is to not be mean but to say, "Hey..This salvation equation doesn't add up."
No one likes the finger pointed but it isn't reserved to me alone but we should all be asking people to repent and believe which is offensive.  It is like this.  We're trying to help but people understand it as, "You have eternal life and I have eternal death".  That is the truth of what we're communicating and the truth is offensive but this is the result of myself and many others following God's word God's way.  We can try a little better and maybe we're obtuse but I'd rather tell people the truth than be better than I am by being like a hypocrite and obscure the meaning by being nice.

I don't want to be mean to you.  I don't want to be mean to any of you.
I am personally trying not to go beyond scripture and insult people but sometimes people feel that things I say are a "dig" or sometimes I try to explain things so that everyone could understand it and people feel that I'm talking down to them and I'm not trying to do that at all.

If I could do anything for any of you, I would if I have the means.


----------



## b23hqb

Can anyone point out the exact post where chuckt personally condemned anyone to hell, or was he merely commenting on what the Bible says about it? I have not read every post on this thread. I'd like to see some clear evidence.


----------



## Radiant1

Chuckt said:


> If I could do anything for any of you, I would if I have the means.



There is something you can do, Chuck, and it's an obvious answer and will cost you nothing.





b23hqb said:


> Can anyone point out the exact post where chuckt personally condemned anyone to hell, or was he merely commenting on what he thinks the Bible says about it? I have not read every post on this thread. I'd like to see some clear evidence.



:fixed:

It wasn't in this thread.


----------



## Bird Dog

b23hqb said:


> Can anyone point out the exact post where chuckt personally condemned anyone to hell, or was he merely commenting on what the Bible says about it? I have not read every post on this thread. I'd like to see some clear evidence.



The first day he showed up here. That's what all you fundamental wackjobs do. Show up on a religious forum after you crawl from under your rocks, find Jesus and start condemning the Catholic Church.
He is not the first and won't be the last. By condemning the Catholic Church, he not only condemns me, but my entire family throughout the millennium, and the billion plus Catholics world wide.

I agree with Radiant1, he is an arrogant, prideful dick.

(arrogant and prideful are my words)


----------



## Bird Dog

Chuckt said:


> If I could do anything for any of you, I would if I have the means.



Quit being an arrogant and prideful dick.

Be respectful of our beliefs


----------



## Gilligan

Ole Chuck just needs to loosen up a bit...maybe come attend a couple of our Druid ceremonies. We provide the beer, or "mead", as we call it..and plenty of it, too.

Our recruiting efforts seem to be working. Last month we picked up two Buddhists, a Rastafarian, and a Democrat.


----------



## b23hqb

Radiant1 said:


> There is something you can do, Chuck, and it's an obvious answer and will cost you nothin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :fixed:
> 
> It wasn't in this thread.



Thread title?


----------



## Radiant1

b23hqb said:


> Thread title?



Frankly, he said nothing different than you have with your insistence on salvation being *your* way by *your* interpretation and anyone who doesn't believe in *your* way and *your* interpretation are not saved, and if not saved they don't obtain Heaven, and if they don't obtain Heaven, well then, they go to Hell now don't they.



http://forums.somd.com/threads/3001...-Church-when?p=5531462&viewfull=1#post5531462

(I'm guessing those chips have already started to fall where they may.)


----------



## PsyOps

Chuckt said:


> If I could do anything *to* any of you, I would if I have the means.



:fixed:


----------



## PsyOps

Bird Dog said:


> Quit being an arrogant and prideful dick.
> 
> Be respectful of our beliefs



This doesn't set a very good tone for respect.


----------



## b23hqb

Radiant1 said:


> Frankly, he said nothing different than you have with your insistence on salvation being *your* way by *your* interpretation and anyone who doesn't believe in *your* way and *your* interpretation are not saved, and if not saved they don't obtain Heaven, and if they don't obtain Heaven, well then, they go to Hell now don't they.
> 
> 
> 
> http://forums.somd.com/threads/3001...-Church-when?p=5531462&viewfull=1#post5531462
> 
> (I'm guessing those chips have already started to fall where they may.)



So frankly, chuckt did not condemn anybody, and he didn't say it. Neither have I. The Jesus taught biblical path to salvation would certainly imply that if you were not saved that way. Only God, and His Word, can condemn. All we can do is talk about it.

Ya'lls just like to type words into peoples posts.


----------



## b23hqb

Radiant1 said:


> Frankly, he said nothing different than you have with your insistence on salvation being *your* way by *your* interpretation and anyone who doesn't believe in *your* way and *your* interpretation are not saved, and if not saved they don't obtain Heaven, and if they don't obtain Heaven, well then, they go to Hell now don't they.
> 
> 
> 
> http://forums.somd.com/threads/3001...-Church-when?p=5531462&viewfull=1#post5531462
> 
> (I'm guessing those chips have already started to fall where they may.)



Neither chuckt or I have ever condemned anyone. I or chuckt don't insist on it - God does. Take it up with God who wrote the requirements, and ask Him if man needs to do anything else outside of His message of salvation.


----------



## Amused_despair

He needs to stop eating bacon, accumulating wealth, and judging people.  If he could do that, that would be swell.


----------



## Gilligan

Amused_despair said:


> He needs to stop eating bacon, accumulating wealth, and judging people. .



Wait...what??


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Radiant1 said:


> What some call profanity others call descriptive and apt words.


Too funny...something an Irish Catholic might say.



Radiant1 said:


> Of course I love you Chuck! If I didn't I wouldn't have tried to help you be a better evangelist. You asked why no one listened and I told you. According to you, I'm scripturally justified in not being nice about it, or is that reserved for you alone? Regardless, there you have it -- I love you therefore I'm going to be mean to you.


Even funnier! But perhaps the most bizarre expression of love I've ever seen


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Never side seems to have won the debate here. But bird-dog would appear to have the *biggest douchebag* award all wrapped up. All ad-hominem, no substance.


----------



## Gilligan

ProximaCentauri said:


> Never side seems to have won the debate here. But bird-dog would appear to have the *biggest douchebag* award all wrapped up. All ad-hominem, no substance.



do I get "best alternative cult" award for us Druids? I worked for it.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Gilligan said:


> do I get "best alternative cult" award for us Druids? I worked for it.



Ok, the Druids appear to be non-judgemental, inclusive, and beer drinking. What's not to like?


----------



## Gilligan

ProximaCentauri said:


> Ok, the Druids appear to be non-judgemental, inclusive, and beer drinking. What's not to like?



I rest my case.


----------



## Bird Dog

ProximaCentauri said:


> Never side seems to have won the debate here. But bird-dog would appear to have the *biggest douchebag* award all wrapped up. All ad-hominem, no substance.



Thank you.


----------



## Bird Dog

I respect those that are respectful......


----------



## Radiant1

b23hqb said:


> *So frankly, chuckt did not condemn anybody, and he didn't say it. Neither have I. *The Jesus taught biblical path to salvation would certainly imply that if you were not saved that way. Only God, and His Word, can condemn. All we can do is talk about it.
> 
> Ya'lls just like to type words into peoples posts.





b23hqb said:


> Neither chuckt or I have ever condemned anyone. I or chuckt don't insist on it - God does. Take it up with God who wrote the requirements, and ask Him if man needs to do anything else outside of His message of salvation.



Sure he did. As far as I'm concerned, that's not Jesus taught, that's Chuckt taught. What he insists on is everyone accepting *his* interpretation of scripture. Since he's not very successful at it, he wants to say that "some Catholics" will not be saved when within his own doctrine to not be saved means going to hell. Don't back peddle for him (or yourself for that matter).

Perhaps you need a reminder of the problem persons such as you and he have and why you can't rightly tell anyone they are saved or not.  According to your own Sola Scriptura doctrine, we (meaning anyone else) can determine what God said without you or Chuckt having to tell us. http://forums.somd.com/threads/300478-The-Protestant-Conundrum?p=5535841&viewfull=1#post5535841


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Funny isn’t it…that everyone is absolutely certain that they themselves are saved and it’s the other guy that’s going to hell. Because it's always the other idiot who is practicing the wrong version of your religion, or another religion altogether.


----------



## stgislander

Well, I think we can all agree the Druids are going to hell.  (Goat head wearing, bonfire dancing freaks.)


----------



## Gilligan

stgislander said:


> Well, I think we can all agree the Druids are going to hell happy.  (Goat head wearing, bonfire dancing, mead guzzling freaks.)



Feexed.


----------



## Bird Dog

ProximaCentauri said:


> Funny isn’t it…that everyone is absolutely certain that they themselves are saved and it’s the other guy that’s going to hell. Because it's always the other idiot who is practicing the wrong version of your religion, or another religion altogether.



Where has a member of the RCC stated that someone on these forums is going to hell because they do not believe like we do?

Idiot.........ad hominem


----------



## Gilligan

Us Druids are lookin' like the better option every day that goes by, eh?  And we were "there" first, so...


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Bird Dog said:


> Where has a member of the RCC stated that someone on these forums is going to hell because they do not believe like we do?
> 
> Idiot.........ad hominem



This was a rhetorical remark. But I wouldn't expect someone with your painfully obvious limited level of intellect to comprehend that.


----------



## Gilligan

ProximaCentauri said:


> This was a rhetorical remark. But I wouldn't expect someone with your painfully obvious limited level of intellect to comprehend that.



wow. Now I know why I like being a Druid so much. You "Christians" can be some mean SOBs..  Drink more mead.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Gilligan said:


> wow. Now I know why I like being a Druid so much. You "Christians" can be some mean SOBs..  Drink more mead.



Drinking wine cause that's all I have...would suggest wine drinking be added to the Druid doctrine if not there already


----------



## PsyOps

Bird Dog said:


> Where has a member of the RCC stated that someone on these forums is going to hell because they do not believe like we do?
> 
> Idiot.........ad hominem



Doesn't the RCC believe their is only one infallible bible (King James version?) and all others are false, and if you read anything other than KJV you are following false doctrine, therefore not saved?

Doesn't the RCC believe that if you are not baptized you aren't saved?

Doesn't the RCC believe that if you don't take communion you aren't saved?

Isn't it true, according to Catholics, that there is only one true church, the RCC, and you MUST be a member in order to be saved?


----------



## Chuckt

PsyOps said:


> Doesn't the RCC believe their is only one infallible bible (King James version?) and all others are false, and if you read anything other than KJV you are following false doctrine, therefore not saved?



I went to a college in a Catholic area and I could only find an RSV.  I'm sure some use a Jerusalem Bible, an Orthodox Bible and other versions.  You are thinking of the 1611 King James only crowd.


----------



## Bird Dog

PsyOps said:


> Doesn't the RCC believe their is only one infallible bible (King James version?) and all others are false, and if you read anything other than KJV you are following false doctrine, therefore not saved?
> 
> Doesn't the RCC believe that if you are not baptized you aren't saved?
> 
> Doesn't the RCC believe that if you don't take communion you aren't saved?
> 
> Isn't it true, according to Catholics, that there is only one true church, the RCC, and you MUST be a member in order to be saved?



No, but I'll wait for Radiant to slice and dice you on your ignorance of the RCC.........


----------



## Bird Dog

ProximaCentauri said:


> This was a rhetorical remark. But I wouldn't expect someone with your painfully obvious limited level of intellect to comprehend that.



I understand, but I try.......


Ad hominem.....no substance


----------



## Bird Dog

PsyOps said:


> Doesn't the RCC believe their is only one infallible bible (King James version?) and all others are false, and if you read anything other than KJV you are following false doctrine, therefore not saved?
> 
> Doesn't the RCC believe that if you are not baptized you aren't saved?
> 
> Doesn't the RCC believe that if you don't take communion you aren't saved?
> 
> Isn't it true, according to Catholics, that there is only one true church, the RCC, and you MUST be a member in order to be saved?




But again, where on these "forums" has any member of the Catholic Church said you are going to Hell because  you do not believe like we do.....please show the post. 

Otherwise STFU.........


----------



## Radiant1

PsyOps said:


> Doesn't the RCC believe their is only one infallible bible (King James version?) and all others are false, and if you read anything other than KJV you are following false doctrine, therefore not saved?
> 
> Doesn't the RCC believe that if you are not baptized you aren't saved?
> 
> Doesn't the RCC believe that if you don't take communion you aren't saved?
> 
> Isn't it true, according to Catholics, that there is only one true church, the RCC, and you MUST be a member in order to be saved?



No, no, no, and no. I can explain where Catholicism stands on each thing one-by-one if you like.

And my proverbial blade will only come out to slice and dice you unless and until you continue to say such things after being informed differently. It's ok to be ignorant of what Catholicism teaches, and it's ok to reject Catholicism once told, but what is not ok is to be informed and then continue with willful ignorance which then becomes deliberate lies. 

I don't recall you ever having done that, Psy. We may not agree on things, and you can be tedious in conversation sometimes, but you are intellectually honest and I respect you for that.


----------



## Gilligan

ProximaCentauri said:


> Drinking wine cause that's all I have...would suggest wine drinking be added to the Druid doctrine if not there already



Noted.  I'll put that suggestion on the agenda for the next meeting of the Elders. 

It was a pretty sparse agenda anyway...about all we had on the table was a selection of different tree graphics to choose this year's t-shirt design from. And a motion to purchase a few more goat heads.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Gilligan said:


> Noted.  I'll put that suggestion on the agenda for the next meeting of the Elders.
> 
> It was a pretty sparse agenda anyway...about all we had on the table was a selection of different tree graphics to choose this year's t-shirt design from. And a motion to purchase a few more goat heads.



Sounds good, how do the Druids feel about Bacon as the ceremonial meat because nothing beats bacon...the Druid's holy communion - or better  yet "Unholy Communion"  could be Anything with/Bacon and Mead!?


----------



## PsyOps

Bird Dog said:


> But again, where on these "forums" has any member of the Catholic Church said you are going to Hell because  you do not believe like we do.....please show the post.
> 
> Otherwise STFU.........



Now, don't get sassy.  If you believe those things are true, then by inference those that don't get baptized (even if they accept Christ as their savior) are going to hell.  If you don't participate in communion you're going to hell.  If you aren't a member of the 'one true' church you're going to hell.  No need to come out and say it.


----------



## stgislander

ProximaCentauri said:


> Sounds good, how do the Druids feel about Bacon as the ceremonial meat because nothing beats bacon...the Druid's holy communion - or better  yet "Unholy Communion"  could be Anything with/Bacon and Mead!?



Bacon as a ceremonial meat... what do you think they do with the goats???


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Radiant1 said:


> No, no, no, and no. I can explain where Catholicism stands on each thing one-by-one if you like.


With respect to the sacraments, are any of them required for salvation? If your answer is no, how about just putting into your own words, what you believe ensures your salvation.


----------



## Gilligan

ProximaCentauri said:


> Sounds good, how do the Druids feel about Bacon as the ceremonial meat because nothing beats bacon...the Druid's holy communion - or better  yet "Unholy Communion"  could be Anything with/Bacon and Mead!?



We regard bacon as sacred. Same for Doritos.  And onion dip.


----------



## Gilligan

stgislander said:


> Bacon as a ceremonial meat... what do you think they do with the goats???


----------



## Bird Dog

PsyOps said:


> Now, don't get sassy.  If you believe those things are true, then by inference those that don't get baptized (even if they accept Christ as their savior) are going to hell.  If you don't participate in communion you're going to hell.  If you aren't a member of the 'one true' church you're going to hell.  No need to come out and say it.



I said "NO".  Now what part of "NO" do you not understand.

Radiant said "no. no, no and no.  What part of her saying no did you not understand.

Now reply to my post or STFU.


----------



## Gilligan

See..I think all y'all need to stop by and attend one of our Druid revivals....sometimes mis-labeled by haters as a "blow-out pig roast party with debauchery in excess".  But as we like to say.."hey dude..its all ritual. Chill"


----------



## Radiant1

[SUP said:
			
		

> PsyOps;5539101]Doesn't the RCC believe their is only one infallible bible (King James version?) and all others are false, and if you read anything other than KJV you are following false doctrine, therefore not saved?



Absolutely not. We really dislike the KJV. Not only is it missing books but it's a poor translation. You have us waaay confused with someone else. If I didn't know you were being sincere, I'd think you were making a joke.



PsyOps said:


> Doesn't the RCC believe that if you are not baptized you aren't saved?



Ultimately the answer to that is no. Baptism removes the "stain" of original sin or our "sin nature" so obviously the sacrament of baptism gives us an easier road so to speak; however, there are people who may not have ever heard the gospel or have heard it but misunderstood it and therefore are not baptized. If their ignorance is to no fault of their own, then they can be saved if they live a life according to their conscience. The same would hold true for someone who desired baptism, but for whatever legitimate reason could not perform the sacrament. 



PsyOps said:


> Doesn't the RCC believe that if you don't take communion you aren't saved?



No for more or less the same reasons as above; however, to receive Christ's glorious body in the Eucharist is to receive a grace from God that would otherwise be missed. This is true of all sacraments.



PsyOps said:


> Isn't it true, according to Catholics, that there is only one true church, the RCC, and you MUST be a member in order to be saved?



No. If it were not for the Catholic Church then there would be no salvation because the gospel would not have spread to anyone. Remember, the Catholic Church is the Apostolic Church and was there to spread the gospel by word of mouth before any scripture was written let alone put together in a bible. Does that mean you *must* be Catholic? Not necessarily.



ProximaCentauri said:


> With respect to the sacraments, are any of them required for salvation? If your answer is no, how about just putting into your own words, what you believe ensures your salvation.



The sacraments, most especially baptism and Eucharist, are *highly encouraged* (to put it lightly); however, *ultimately* they are not *absolutely* required for salvation as there are always caveats. See above.

The only assurance of salvation I have is if I continue to work with God's grace. I fall (sin), I get back up (repent). I fall again (sin), and I get back up again (repent). Christ's sacrifice was to open the doors of Heaven so that we might finally be able to obtain justification; however, there is no guarantee that we will be saved. To be saved, we must cooperate with God's grace. To do so is a reciprocal act of love between God and man, it's not a one-sided deal. We do individually what Israel did collectively. So, by Christ's sacrifice I have been justified (the doors of Heaven have been opened for me) but my salvation remains to be seen (whether I actually walk through those doors or not) and that is up to God's continued loving response to me and my continued loving response to God.


----------



## Radiant1

Gilligan said:


> See..I think all y'all need to stop by and attend one of our Druid revivals....sometimes mis-labeled by haters as a "blow-out pig roast party with debauchery in excess".  But as we like to say.."hey dude..its all ritual. Chill"



I have been developing a romantic relationship with a neo-Druid the last few months. He's the only man I've ever met who can keep up with me in intensity and passion in the numerous and various directions that I tend to run -- Anam Cara!

I'd be more than happy to party with y'all. I'll bring bread and wine!


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Radiant1 said:


> The sacraments, most especially baptism and Eucharist, are *highly encouraged* (to put it lightly); however, *ultimately* they are not *absolutely* required for salvation as there are always caveats. See above.
> 
> The only assurance of salvation I have is if I continue to work with God's grace. I fall (sin), I get back up (repent). I fall again (sin), and I get back up again (repent). Christ's sacrifice was to open the doors of Heaven so that we might finally be able to obtain justification; however, there is no guarantee that we will be saved. To be saved, we must cooperate with God's grace. To do so is a reciprocal act of love between God and man, it's not a one-sided deal. We do individually what Israel did collectively. So, by Christ's sacrifice I have been justified (the doors of Heaven have been opened for me) but my salvation remains to be seen (whether I actually walk through those doors or not) and that is up to God's continued loving response to me and my continued loving response to God.



Thanks for sharing that. This is a less rigid vision of what most people think the RCC teaches, less dogmatic and with a holistic spin on the sacraments. I like the view that the sacraments are, in and of themselves, not the be all end all, but are simply supportive examples of the  "reciprocal acts of love between God and man". And I don't doubt your correctness WRT what the RCC teaches; you seem to have done much study. Allowing for caveats takes the edge off the hard edged doctrine, but I would argue that the *rigidity* that defines Catholicism remains in its numerous Church doctrines.

I'm sure you're aware, many Catholics do view certain sacraments as *required*. And their focus and approach towards the faith emphasizes *ritual* not *relationship*. Attending mass and practicing the *sacraments* are essentially getting the 'checks in the boxes' for them. On the flip side of that, many Catholics, especially American Catholics, do not practice or 'believe in' church doctrine relating to birth control, abortion, stem cell research etc.


----------



## PsyOps

Bird Dog said:


> I said "NO".  Now what part of "NO" do you not understand.
> 
> Radiant said "no. no, no and no.  What part of her saying no did you not understand.
> 
> Now reply to my post or STFU.



You really need to address that temper.  Now that I've heard one Catholic, perhaps some others could chime in.  I can tell you there is one (who has been absent, and I can't remember his name) who was quite adamant that if you are not Catholic you're not saved.


----------



## Radiant1

ProximaCentauri said:


> Thanks for sharing that. This is a less rigid vision of what most people think the RCC teaches, less dogmatic and with a holistic spin on the sacraments. I like the view that the sacraments are, in and of themselves, not the be all end all, but are simply supportive examples of the  "reciprocal acts of love between God and man". And I don't doubt your correctness WRT what the RCC teaches; you seem to have done much study. Allowing for caveats takes the edge off the hard edged doctrine, but I would argue that the *rigidity* that defines Catholicism remains in its numerous Church doctrines.
> 
> I'm sure you're aware, many Catholics do view certain sacraments as *required*. And their focus and approach towards the faith emphasizes *ritual* not *relationship*. Attending mass and practicing the *sacraments* are essentially getting the 'checks in the boxes' for them. On the flip side of that, many Catholics, especially American Catholics, do not practice or 'believe in' church doctrine relating to birth control, abortion, stem cell research etc.




Sacraments are tools to be used, ritual as well. Both enhance one's relationship with God. And  yes, Catholicism can draw a hard-line circle of doctrine; however, I find that within that circle there is much room to breathe. One can express their individual spirituality within the bounds of Catholicism whether "rigid" or "holistic", all of the varied saints being an example of this. But hey, Christianity and Catholicism in particular isn't easy. The Way can sometimes be a hard and narrow road, and perhaps American Catholics are finding that especially true.


----------



## Gilligan

Radiant1 said:


> I have been developing a romantic relationship with a neo-Druid the last few months.



We typically have that effect on wimmin.  Especially wimmin that like trees....or mead...


----------



## Radiant1

PsyOps said:


> I can tell you there is one (who has been absent, and I can't remember his name) who was quite adamant that if you are not Catholic you're not saved.



That would be Bavarian. If I remember correctly, he is a staunch pre-V2 Catholic who is a part of what is a fringe group (SSPX) who are so Catholic they nearly cease to be Catholic due to schismatic acts. 

It sounds as if you *want* a Catholic to say you aren't saved, blah blah. I mean, I can tell you that if you really want, but it wouldn't be true. The fact of the matter is, we just don't know who will be saved or not. Justified, yes, but not saved.


----------



## PsyOps

Radiant1 said:


> Absolutely not. We really dislike the KJV. Not only is it missing books but it's a poor translation. You have us waaay confused with someone else. If I didn't know you were being sincere, I'd think you were making a joke.
> 
> Ultimately the answer to that is no. Baptism removes the "stain" of original sin or our "sin nature" so obviously the sacrament of baptism gives us an easier road so to speak; however, there are people who may not have ever heard the gospel or have heard it but misunderstood it and therefore are not baptized. If their ignorance is to no fault of their own, then they can be saved if they live a life according to their conscience. The same would hold true for someone who desired baptism, but for whatever legitimate reason could not perform the sacrament.
> 
> No for more or less the same reasons as above; however, to receive Christ's glorious body in the Eucharist is to receive a grace from God that would otherwise be missed. This is true of all sacraments.
> 
> No. If it were not for the Catholic Church then there would be no salvation because the gospel would not have spread to anyone. Remember, the Catholic Church is the Apostolic Church and was there to spread the gospel by word of mouth before any scripture was written let alone put together in a bible. Does that mean you *must* be Catholic? Not necessarily.
> 
> The sacraments, most especially baptism and Eucharist, are *highly encouraged* (to put it lightly); however, *ultimately* they are not *absolutely* required for salvation as there are always caveats. See above.



You’re right… much of what the CC believes is confusing.  Heck, much of what the protestant side believes has me a little perplexed.  However, your answers are a bit wishy-washy to me.

To baptism “ultimately the answer is no”, then you provide caveats.  I have to inject how the CC justifies infant baptism as a means to salvation.  This tells me the CC believes Baptism is a mechanism to salvation.  But I have been told by many Catholics (and even some non-Catholics) that if you are not baptized you can’t be saved.

To communion, again you are placing caveats.  They are not *absolutely* required, but could be?

Even if we (all of us) do accept that the Catholic Church is THE Apostolic Church (the source church for all Christianity), which many don’t, is it acceptable that we be members of non-Catholic churches?  I’ve had many tell me otherwise.



Radiant1 said:


> The only assurance of salvation I have is if I continue to work with God's grace. I fall (sin), I get back up (repent). I fall again (sin), and I get back up again (repent). Christ's sacrifice was to open the doors of Heaven so that we might finally be able to obtain justification; however, there is no guarantee that we will be saved. To be saved, we must cooperate with God's grace. To do so is a reciprocal act of love between God and man, it's not a one-sided deal. We do individually what Israel did collectively. So, by Christ's sacrifice I have been justified (the doors of Heaven have been opened for me) but my salvation remains to be seen (whether I actually walk through those doors or not) and that is up to God's continued loving response to me and my continued loving response to God.



I like your answer here, but the problem I have with it is, if I sin and die before I have a chance for confession/repentance, what is my salvation status?  You already know my view on this, that once you accept Christ as your savior you are saved at that moment.  All other things are supposed to be natural changes in one’s life, but not requirements to ‘maintain’ one’s salvation.  But I am in an effort to show that many Catholic do hold the view that if you don’t adhere to these ‘sacraments’ you are not saved; thus by inference stating they can claim to know the status of one’s salvation.  You and Bird Dog have sort of stated otherwise; but I have enough personal experience to say it is widely believed that you must accept Christ, be baptized, receive communion routinely, go to confession, be a member of the Catholic Church… and not doing these things, you’re not saved.

But I don't want to beat this up too much because I adamantly reject anyone claiming they know the status of someone's salvation; unless that person openly admits they are an atheist and completely reject God.


----------



## PsyOps

Radiant1 said:


> That would be Bavarian. If I remember correctly, he is a staunch pre-V2 Catholic who is a part of what is a fringe group (SSPX) who are so Catholic they nearly cease to be Catholic due to schismatic acts.
> 
> It sounds as if you *want* a Catholic to say you aren't saved, blah blah. I mean, I can tell you that if you really want, but it wouldn't be true. The fact of the matter is, we just don't know who will be saved or not. Justified, yes, but not saved.



That’s him.  

I have a near lifetime of experiences with various denominations and contacts with just about every belief in existence.  I have seen some very terrible things committed by just about every denomination.  For now I am focused on the CC.  I’ve seen people ‘excommunicated’ for having relationships with someone non-C.  I’ve seen CCs reject providing a wedding for a couple that one is C and the other is P.  I can’t tell you how many Cs I’ve been in discussions with that tell me because I’m not a member of THE Church, I’m not saved, if I’m not baptized I’m not saved, if I don’t go to confession I’m not saved.  On the other hand… I have had Ps tell me I’m not saved if I don’t acquire a ‘gift’ (like speaking in tongues or healing), if I don’t tithe 10% I’m not saved.  I knew one guy whose church believed that if you used musical instruments to worship God, this is sinful and isn’t a real Christian Church and those that attend those churches aren’t saved.  His claim was that the only way to worship God is through the pure voice.  However it was okay to listen to secular music.  He was into the heavy metal with lyrics full of what is considered to be Satan worship.  Weird stuff if you ask me.

So, my thoughts on this come from real experience and not just a desire to vilify your church or anyone else’s.  I just want to understand.  My attempt here was, though, to point out that Chuck isn’t the only one that points that judgmental finger at folks.  I’ve had enough of it to know that, according to many on all sides of our faith, I’m not saved.


----------



## Radiant1

PsyOps said:


> To baptism “ultimately the answer is no”, then you provide caveats.  I have to inject how the CC justifies infant baptism as a means to salvation.  This tells me the CC believes Baptism is a mechanism to salvation.  But I have been told by many Catholics (and even some non-Catholics) that if you are not baptized you can’t be saved.



The caveats are the reason the answer is no. Granted, the caveats are small and not likely; however, they do exist so therefore the answer is no. Baptism is a mechanism to salvation; however, it's not absolutely required, again, due to the caveats mentioned. Is it better to be baptized? Absolutely! Is it preferable to be baptized? Absolutely! Does baptism confer a special grace upon the person receiving it? Absolutely, and that's why we baptize our children.



PsyOps said:


> To communion, again you are placing caveats.  They are not *absolutely* required, but could be?



See above, same thing.



PsyOps said:


> Even if we (all of us) do accept that the Catholic Church is THE Apostolic Church (the source church for all Christianity), which many don’t, is it acceptable that we be members of non-Catholic churches?  I’ve had many tell me otherwise.



Acceptable? Well, no it's not acceptable, but it is tolerable. You are our "separated brothers in Christ". As long as you aren't swaying away from basic Trinitarian Christianity, then we consider you the Body of Christ. Distant cousins or something like that, but still family.



PsyOps said:


> I like your answer here, but the problem I have with it is, if I sin and die before I have a chance for confession/repentance, what is my salvation status?  You already know my view on this, that once you accept Christ as your savior you are saved at that moment.



Repentance stems first and foremost from the heart. The act of confessing is to seal that repentance and renewal with God's grace, a reciprocal act of love. If  you die sorrowful for your sins, then the act of confession isn't necessary; however, it is better, preferable, and confers a special grace. Now, having said that, if you die having committed a sin that you knew was a sin and you were not sorry for it, then you're in trouble and your salvation might be at stake.



PsyOps said:


> All other things are supposed to be natural changes in one’s life, but not requirements to ‘maintain’ one’s salvation.  But I am in an effort to show that many Catholic do hold the view that if you don’t adhere to these ‘sacraments’ you are not saved; thus by inference stating they can claim to know the status of one’s salvation.  You and Bird Dog have sort of stated otherwise; but I have enough personal experience to say it is widely believed that you must accept Christ, be baptized, receive communion routinely, go to confession, be a member of the Catholic Church… and not doing these things, you’re not saved.



How old are these Catholics? I ask because there are many that are still living in a pre-Vatican2 era. Vatican 2 was an ecumenical and teaching council of bishops from all over the world to come together to form new and different understandings of the doctrines of the Church. The council officially began on December 25, 1961 (only two generations ago). The doctrines stay the same, but over time our understanding of them differ. We do not understand things the same way we did in the 1st, 5th, 10th, or 15th centuries. (The Wiki article is good if you care to read it). As you can imagine, considering how many Catholics there are in the world, it is very difficult to re-catechize those who were raised pre-V2 hence the confusion.



PsyOps said:


> But I don't want to beat this up too much because I adamantly reject anyone claiming they know the status of someone's salvation; unless that person openly admits they are an atheist and completely reject God.



Agreed.

And btw, Chuckt and those like him are the only ones who point fingers on this forum, this venue, this media. I guarantee you that the majority of Christian faithful on somd.com forums are majority Catholic, but as typical of Catholics they just want to practice their faith and be left alone. There are only a few who are willing and/or equipped to address people such as he. I was raised in various Protestant denominations and was exposed to Catholic households and never once was my salvation called into question by anyone UNTIL I became Catholic and it was then the persecution and finger pointing began by not only my own family but strangers as well. Although not exactly the same, my experience is somewhat similar to yours.


----------



## Radiant1

Gilligan said:


> We typically have that effect on wimmin.  Especially wimmin that like trees....or mead...



I love old gnarly oak trees. I'm not overly fond of mead, but I might be talked into dancing around the fire naked (sans goat head of course).


----------



## Gilligan

Radiant1 said:


> I love old gnarly oak trees. I'm not overly fond of mead, but I might be talked into dancing around the fire naked (sans goat head of course).



The goat head takes a little getting used to...I admit that.


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Radiant1 said:


> I love old gnarly oak trees. I'm not overly fond of mead, but I might be talked into dancing around the fire naked (sans goat head of course).



Damn!    You go girl! But you may need to go to confession after


----------



## Radiant1

ProximaCentauri said:


> Damn!    You go girl! But you may need to go to confession after



Is it sinful to dance naked around a fire?


----------



## Gilligan

Radiant1 said:


> Is it sinful to dance naked around a fire?



Singeful, perhaps...


----------



## ProximaCentauri

Radiant1 said:


> Is it sinful to dance naked around a fire?



Are your kidding me, sin doesn't exist in my universe! In my world it's highly recommended for your spiritual health just like skinny dipping and sunbathing nude and a host of other things that I would recommend for your spiritual health better left unsaid


----------

